A few days ago, I wrote a boring post about why Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law was constitutional. For fun, I left the comments open, and to my surprise, one comment was SO insightful that I am: A.) elevating it to its own post, and B.) I am going to give some detailed answers to this person’s questions.
Also, tempting fate — I’ll go ahead and leave the comments open on this post. Please, be gentle…
First, the comment in full:
Yikes! I’ve tried leaving a comment so many times but the comments are always close before I get a chance! Now I finally have an opportunity and can’t think of what I want to say 🙃
I guess I would have 2 questions. I saw someone screenshot a comment you made regarding Omar lying because he said the bankruptcy case was dismissed but that technically hasn’t been signed off yet (I don’t follow everything, so I don’t know where that actually came from)…. My question is, would this really be considered lying or could it just have been an error? Would Laura really be able to sue someone if it was just an error? I guess I’m seeing it as kind of similar as whatever that whole deal with the money in the bank about statement was you made by mistake? Or maybe that’s different…. I guess I tend to always assume the best in people and that he was not intentionally trying to lie. And to be fair, I give you the same benefit of the doubt when others are pretty accusatory of things 🙂
My second comment/question is regarding you working pro bono for Laura….(Or any lawyer who works pro bono). In order to provide pro bono service, do you have to give the same opportunity to anyone who needs it? Or are you allowed to just be pro bono for a friend because you want to? I’m asking because I work in healthcare, and we have strict rules about providing pro bono care. We have to provide everyone with the same access and equal opportunities (ie, a sliding scale). So anyone with a certain level of financial hardship would also have to be offered this. Are lawyers not obligated to this? I don’t hate Laura the way some others do, but I do kind of get annoyed that she gets all these free services when I do know a lot of people who I just kind of feel are a little bit more deserving (knowing their circumstances). I do feel bad for her but kinda feel like it’s time she give up on this.
OKAY, THIS is what comments SHOULD look like. ACTUAL questions with some ACTUAL thought behind them. Since this person was kind enough to spend some brainpower on these questions, the least I can do is to return the favor…so here we go.
Issue #1 — Can/Should Laura sue Omar for violating the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay?
This question turns on two main things — first, what does the law say about this, and second, did Omar do something that warrants suing his ass?
The law part is easy. The MINUTE a person files bankruptcy, federal law imposes something called the “automatic stay”. This is explained in 11 U.S.C. § 362, which is LONG and SUPER complicated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362
The basic idea is simple — people who file bankruptcy are usually going through financial hell/chaos. We’re talking about people who are struggling to pay bills they can’t afford. The phone is ringing off the hook with angry creditors demanding to know when they’re going to be paid. Letters arrive every day with threats of legal action. It’s a nightmare.
Most people do everything possible to avoid filing BK. They borrow money from friends. They take loans on a credit card to pay other debts. They sell stuff if they can. They juggle everything they can desperately trying to stay afloat.
Eventually they give up and push the big, red BK button. The minute that happens, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 kicks in and IMMEDIATELY STOPS EVERYTHING.
The moment a creditor receives notice of the BK filing, they must immediately stop ALL collection efforts. They can’t continue to call. They can’t send letters. They can’t file lawsuits or continue a case that has already been filed. They can’t do anything to threaten the debtor. All of that is barred by the automatic stay.
The idea is to give people a break from the chaos. “Breathing room”.
To give teeth to this law, 11 U.S.C. § 362(K)(1) says:
[A]n individual injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.
Want to know how simple and deadly this law is? Read this: In re Snowden, 769 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 2014).
Snowden involved a woman who took out a payday loan of $575 to help pay bills. She apparently wrote a check to the payday lender to repay the loan, but then she stopped payment on the check. She eventually filed bankruptcy, and guess what happened? The payday lender cashed the check despite knowing about the BK.
The debtor sued the payday lender for violating the automatic stay. The debtor offered to settle the case for $25,000 (because a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362 allows the recovery of emotional distress damages, legal fees, and punitive damages). The payday lender countered with an offer to pay $1,445.
The debtor rejected that offer and the case went to trial. The result = the court found the lender violated the automatic stay, and it awarded “emotional distress damages of $12,000 as well as the $575 loan amount, $370 in bank fees, $12,000 in punitive damages, and $2,538.55 in attorneys’ fees, totaling $27,483.55.”
Think about that — the debtor (Ms. Snowden) actually owed money to the payday lender (she owed the original loan of $575). All the payday lender did was to cash a check Ms. Snowden gave them to repay the loan. Just one problem — they did this after she filed for bankruptcy and during the time when the automatic stay was in effect. As a result, they were ordered to pay nearly $30,000 in damages, and actually the Court of Appeals held that award was too low for technical reasons, so they sent the case back to have more fees added.
The idea here is simple — do NOT fuck with the automatic stay. EVER. And if you do, you can face extremely serious consequences — you have to pay the debtor’s attorney’s fees, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. No matter how small the mistake.
So that’s the LAW part. Now let’s look at what Omar did — we all know Laura filed BK. Omar knew this. And we know that Laura has made an agreement with the U.S. Trustee to have her case dismissed…..but that hasn’t happened yet. The case is still open, and it will remain open until the court grants the motion.
Despite this, Omar filed pleadings in San Francisco asking for an absurd award of fees based on things that happened before Laura filed BK. That is 100% clearly a violation of the automatic stay. No question whatsoever. He could have done that after the BK case was dismissed, but not before.
Now, you asked:
My question is, would this really be considered lying or could it just have been an error? Would Laura really be able to sue someone if it was just an error?
Two things — Omar doesn’t make “errors”. Omar is a habitual liar. Omar lies about anything/everything. I know this because he blatantly lied to the court after I was involved for one three-minute hearing. Omar seems to think that lying is OK, because fuck — everyone else does is without any consequence, so surely he can too.
I mean look – I have also said I believe Omar is one of the worst lawyers I’ve ever encountered in terms of his legal “skill” (in other words, he has none). His writing is worse than a first year law student, and he has ZERO track record of ever winning anything in court of any significance. He’s never won an appeal (never even worked on an appeal as far as I can tell). He’s never set foot in federal court (he’s not even admitted to practice in federal court). He’s basically like a guy who watched Top Gun, bought a pair of aviator sunglasses, and now he tells people he’s a fighter pilot. That doesn’t make it true.
Is it obvious I don’t like Omar very much? That’s beside the point….so I’ll stop.
The point is this — even if Omar was the worst lawyer in the county, he knows Laura’s BK case has NOT been dismissed. Thus, he simply LIED TO THE COURT about this. Do you think that’s an innocent “error”? I sure don’t, especially not in light of Omar’s track record of similar lies.
I am so sick and tired of watching lawyers lie with impunity….so while Laura hasn’t formally retained me to deal with this, my advice to her would be to ABSOLUTELY sue Omar immediately in Arizona. He has earned that, and he needs to finally suffer some consequences for his actions.
Ms. Snowden sued over a teeny-tiny debt that she actually owed….and she got a massive award of damages for a creditor’s tiny mistake. Omar intentionally lied, so I don’t think that falls into the “oopsie” category.
Issue #2 – Pro Bono Service
I have a lot to say on this topic….but let’s just correct a couple of things…..
First, it has been a very common theme for people to laugh at me and call me a LOSER because I have “worked for Laura for free”.
Let’s correct that BS immediately.
First, Laura paid me, in full, for ALL the work I did before and during the trial phase. I don’t have the total figure in front of me, but it was a LOT — around $40-50K. Yes, I agreed to handle the appeal without payment….which isn’t the same thing as saying it was pro bono.
My belief was that we would win the appeal, and the court would order Clayton to pay my fees. Obviously it didn’t turn out that way, but it is very common for lawyers to accept cases like this based on their hope/expectation that they will be paid by the opposing party. Sometimes that happens, and sometimes it doesn’t.
And something else key that everyone seems to be missing — Woodnick also worked for FREE. My understanding is that Clayton paid Woodnick something early on….I think the number was a little under $10K….or maybe a little over. It wasn’t much.
The bottom line is Clayton DID NOT pay Woodnick for a vast majority of the work on the case. Woodnick handled it without payment….I believe because he was angry at Laura and wanted to use the case for personal revenge (which is illegal and unethical). Yes, Woodnick got a judgment saying Laura owes him money for fees, but Laura doesn’t have the money to pay Woodnick, and I expect she never will.
Either way, it is 100% FALSE for anyone to claim that I worked on the case for “free”, and it is 100% false to say Clayton actually paid Woodnick $200K (or anything close to that number). Based on the facts as I understand them, I was paid about 4-5x as much as Woodnick.
Now, I saw your comment about working in healthcare and the fact: “We have to provide everyone with the same access and equal opportunities (ie, a sliding scale). So anyone with a certain level of financial hardship would also have to be offered this. Are lawyers not obligated to this?”
No, private lawyers like me are never required to provide any free services to anyone. Pro bono work is strongly encouraged, and I have represented many clients for free over the years. But the bar can’t force you to work for free (with one exception — all lawyers in AZ who have practiced for more than five years are required to serve as court-appointed arbitrators for a whopping $75 per case, but that’s different).
The rules are different in healthcare because most hospitals get money from the federal government (via Medicare), and I think most states have laws that require hospitals to provide care to critically ill patients even if they can’t pay. Hospitals and doctors can still send a bill to the patient regardless of their ability to pay, but you can’t allow a patient to die on the floor just because they have no money.
I personally thing we should completely re-vamp the U.S. legal system to provide free legal help to anyone who needs it. We DO have that system for criminal cases, but unfortunately not for civil stuff. I’d like to see that change, at least for people who are injured by online attacks. Companies like YouTube allow people like Omar to post unverified garbage that can and does cause serious harm to others. YouTube is immune from liability due to something called the Communications Decency Act (which says website owners are not liable for harmful content posted by third parties).
I think we should amend the CDA to say that website companies who profit from user-generated content are required to pay an extra tax that would be used to fund legal help for anyone harmed by that same user-generated content. It’s just an idea that will surely never get off the ground, but still….
Anyway thank you for the questions, and FYI — I actually AGREE 1000% that what really needs to happen here is EVERYONE needs to put this behind them and move on. I certainly want to (even though the AZ Bar won’t let me). I know Laura wants to move on, but she is being dragged through all this against her will. So until the people on the other side stop and end this, what choice do we really have?
Hello! You blocked me on X, but I’ll forgive you for that.
I find issue with your analysis on why Omar is not allowed to file for fees and costs. Not a lawyer, but here we go. Laura’s Chapter 7 filing has listed a number of creditors, but Omar is not listed there. She even stated that the DVRO case is ongoing in the meeting of creditors. If Omar was to sit on his hands for fees, his statutory deadline would have passed (May 4th If I recall correctly). I am unaware of the motion practice, but he may be able to file for leave for extension of the deadline pending the outcome of the bankruptcy, but here again, he’s not a listed creditor. He doesn’t even have a judgement.
Omar needs to file the application AND win the judgement to be a viable creditor, then the automatic stay COULD be in affect, but Laura would need to amend her petition to include him. Otherwise it would fall outside of the scope of the bankruptcy proceeding. That’s why declaring ALL debtors is so important, to ensure the person making the declaration is covered under the suitable protections.
Welcome the conversation and follow-up.
I REALLY don’t want to give Omar free legal advice here….but I see you are trying to understand. I blocked you for making what I felt was an unfriendly comment (sorry, I’m just not in the mood). But the way you have worded these questions is fair…so I will try to give you a fair answer. First, of course Omar (Mike) wasn’t listed as a creditor at the time Laura filed….because at that time, she didn’t owe a debt to Omar/Mike. To be sure, Omar had an unliquidated CLAIM against Laura, but that was really just hypothetical…because Omar hadn’t even applied for fees (and there was no basis for him to apply for fees, so that made sense). BUT, if Omar wanted to push forward by turning his hypothetical claim into a real number, here’s what he needed to do — just ask the BK court to lift the stay. This happens ALL THE TIME. It is entirely routine for creditors to file a request with the BK court asking the judge to lift the automatic stay. If Omar had a deadline he needed to meet, then maybe that would have been a valid basis for him to seek relief from the BK court. But instead, he just filed pleadings which were done in clear violation of the stay. Again, the stay does not end until the case is DISMISSED, which has not happened yet. So yeah, BIG screw up by Omar. The only question is what should happen as a result?
No. She can try but it’s dumb. This whole argument is dumb. I played nice with you on Threads when you were on there. I’ve tried to see your point of view but this is just enough!
Am I on Threads? That’s the Instagram version of Twitter? I know it exists, but I have no memory of talking to you on Threads. Sorry if I annoy you.
You say Laura’s being dragged through this against her will, but she could make it all go away at any moment. She could plea out. The county does have evidence of her perjury, lies she told Clayton and Greg, and stolen ultrasounds, among other things. I would encourage you to listen to Mike and his wife talk in the Love Trapped podcast. They want nothing more to do with her yet she’s insisting on this DVRO appeal and or filing a new one. They live in another state- he’s married happily. He has two young children. He has enough to deal with and is not interested in hearing from or communicating with her ever. She doesn’t need a DVRO against him. She is simply doing it out of retaliation for him not dating her or whatever. Again- this is another case where she could make it go away if she just stopped. She is the one who has the power to stop everything by admitting to the things she’s done wrong – it looks like in the plea deal she only has to admit to a few of the 14 counts against her. It doesn’t even look like she would get jail time if she takes the plea deal! And since we now have a president who’s been convicted on 34 felonies I really doubt her having a few on her record will be that big of a deal. To say she’s being dragged through all this against her will is disingenuous at best.
Will Laura sue? Probably, but what are her damages? As of now, she has none. So isn’t this a moot point?
As for Omar’s “lying.” I’m reluctant to immediately call someone a liar. Maybe it’s a mistake. Maybe the motion was being drafted for weeks, and he didn’t catch it before he filed it. Either way, Omar can file an amended motion now and remedy the error. Laura will have no damages, and all will be OK.
But to your original point about Laura suing. How? Are you going to take that case in federal court? If not, where would she get the money for that lawyer? I’m sure Woodnick and Team would like to know.
(Sorry if there are duplicates: your site keeps returning a 404 error)
Did you read my post? A lady who actually owed a small debt to a payday loan company sued that company for violating the automatic stay and received nearly $30K (for a mistake involving a debt of less than $600). The law allows victims to recover attorney’s fees, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. Omar has such a track record of bad-faith conduct, the punitive damages alone here could be substantial. As for how Laura would pay for a lawsuit, again — the law would make Omar pay her fees…so hopefully that answers the question.
Yes, I did. In the case you cited, the collector was already a named creditor in the bankruptcy. The debtor in your case had actual damages: the named creditor overdrew the debtor’s account while there was a stay. Here, we don’t have that. We don’t even have a creditor yet as there is no judgment. Laura has no actual damages. As for emotional distress, that seems to be pre-existing. These cases are not analogous.
Slow clap for this comment! Isn’t it interesting how Mr Tramp Stamp Lawyer, Esq isnt rushing to reply to your comment as much as others when he has zero rebuttal to add…….
Honestly, considering the District Attorney ‘s office has possession of Laura ‘s phone and lord only knows the kind of communication they found between her and Gingy on there, he’s lucky he’s not slapped with criminal charges himself and merely a bar investigation. Because we know he had access to get medical portal and knows she has zero medical records that arent arts and crafts but here he is pretending he had no idea. And he has the giant brass balls to claim Omar and Woodnick lie to the court. Good lord.
There needs to be a new medical term invenred to diagnose whatever mental illness this man and Laura Owens both suffer from.
I would just chalk it up to extreme narcissism and rich kid entitlement syndrome but he got really upset last time I tried to explain that point (admittedly, a bit clumsily) and devoted a whole diatribe of a post just to it….sorry to cause all that commotion but it needed to be said.
That’s ok, with any luck he’ll lose both his law license and drivers license simultaneously while LO heads off to prison (please dont take the plea deal, Laura, we implore you lol)
P.s Final Episode 12 of Love Trapped that dropped today was one for the books wasnt it, you guys!! And I love how they gave zero opportunity for DS to speak but instead aired the most incriminating and salacious audio clips from his little YouTube videos with LO that he deleted and thought would never see the light of day again. Ya love to see it!
Brainworms will make this hard for you to understand, but think about what you said here: “considering the District Attorney ‘s office has possession of Laura ‘s phone and lord only knows the kind of communication they found between her and Gingy on there, he’s lucky he’s not slapped with criminal charges himself and merely a bar investigation.” THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT — MCAO has access to EVERYTHING. And if there was ANY evidence of me being an accomplice, they could and would have filed criminal charges against me. The fact I have not been charged is proof that there is NO evidence that would warrant charges. But please tell me how Trump isn’t in the Epstein files…..
Because unlike how YOU tend to operate., MCAO wouldn’t charge someone without iron clad evidence so even if they found some suspicious stuff on her phone in her communication with her unless they literally have you in writing admitting to it somewhere. Which they clearly must not. Doesn’t mean you didn’t know everything and chose to ignore it. You would have to be downright incompetent not to know and you may be a lot of things but you do have an above average IQ and knowledge as a lawyer. You just chose to use that high IQ and knowledge for evil but what can you do. At the end of the day, you can turn off your conscience and live with that.
Wish MCAO could operate like you do in legal proceedings and just go ” look at me daddy” and claim something criminal about you is rock solid 100% indisputable fact based only hearsay and speculation. But no, that’s not how actual legal system works. Thank Gd for that.
Correction: meant to say criminal justice system, not legal system.
So, Mr. Howe, how did Nata know PP was closed on Sunday? And why hasn’t she disclosed that to correct the false statement in her ruling where she claimed Dr. Deans said that?
I’m sure I’ll be corrected. If the State has a defendants cell phone, aren’t they required to have a taint team to remove all client/attorney communications? I thought regardless of the circumstances, the attorney/client communications were off-limits.
Had to consult good old chatgpt since this isnt my area of expertise 🙂 You are partially right. There is a special ” taint team” required to review client attorney communication (and for all we know there was one? We have no clue who was tasked with reviewing the evidence) however there is something called ” crime fraud exception” And a lawyer CAN face charges if evidence shows they knowingly:
-helped conceal fraud,
-destroyed evidence,
-coached false testimony,
-moved illicit funds,
-participated in perjury,
-obstructed justice,
or otherwise joined the criminal conduct.
“Helped conceal fraud” and “Coached false testimony” could have potentially applied here but its too broad so there really would need to be iron clad evidence to support this. He has said a lot of jaw droppinlgy questionable stuff onlme and in his past and present videos but there is just enough of a leeway for him not to be criminally charged with anything related to this case. Because again, criminal prosecutors dont act the way he did in relation to Judge Mata and just start accusing people on record with no evidence other than someone on YouTube making an off hand comment simply because they have an axe to grind lol
Like someone else just said – a lawyer absolutely CAN be charged with a crime for knowingly helping a client do something illegal. In that case, attorney/client privilege does not apply at all (this actually came up in a case involving one of Trump’s lawyers who helped him lie about the 2020 election). Here, there is ZERO concern about me being charged with anything since I did not knowingly help anyone commit a crime.
The only people who read your blogs are “JFC” people. You know that, I know that, dogs know that. So I need you to understand something form our perspective: we have never seen you win. Not once. You talk such a big game, but as long as we have known about you, you’ve been nothing but wrong. Over and over again.
You don’t need to keep trying to impress us. We don’t believe you, we don’t believe that you’ll succeed. We have no reason to.
Did I not win the IAH case against Rob?
“it is 100% false to say Clayton actually paid Woodnick $200K (or anything close to that number).” –What evidence do you have to make this claim?
“Omar intentionally lied, so I don’t think that falls into the “oopsie” category.” –What evidence do you have to make this claim?
As for how much Clayton did or didn’t pay Woodnick….there are at least three bases for what I said. First, when Woodnick applied for fees, he did NOT claim Clayton had paid everything he billed for. He merely said (on page 3 of his fee affidavit, which is here: https://www.appeals2.az.gov/APL2NewDocs1/COA/1061/3954174.PDF) that CLayton had “agreed to pay” the fees. Woodnick never produced any invoices showing payments, so you can safely assume those weren’t done (I invoiced Laura for all the work I did, and my invoices track every payment). Second, common sense — I’ve been doing this a long time. Clayton is a young guy with, as far as I can tell, a limited income. People on reality TV don’t get paid millions, and Clayton’s family isn’t rich (to my knowledge), so I do not believe a guy in his early 30s would agree to pay, or actually would pay, $200K in legal fees for a case like this. No freaking way. And third, I was told the actual amount of fees paid based on information disclosed by Rachel Mitchell. It’s around $10K, give or take.
As for Omar lying, he told the SF court that Laura’s BK case “has been dismissed with prejudice”. Uh, no it has not. Evidence = the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72006254/laura-owens/
I am struggling to understand how the LAW applies here with Omar not being listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy case. I would think that the stay would not apply to him. What am I missing? In the case you used, the creditor was listed and had received communication about the stay. It is as though you are comparing apples to oranges…IMO.
I agree with you. But then, I am an internet nobody.
Omar isn’t listed as a creditor and he is not enforcing or collecting on money that is owed to him. He’s asking a judge to make a determination if Laura owes him any fees and if yes how much. Before the judge grants and awards him fees. He is not able to attempt to collect. If he’s awarded fees and he tried to collect before the bankruptcy case is officially dismissed then he would be at fault but Omar’s motion to the judge is just trying to work out if he will even have the potential of becoming a person Laura owes a debit to or not so don’t think its the same as your example of the payday lender actually collecting/cashing a check on a debit whilst listed as a offical creditor an being officially notified of the client being in a bankruptcy claim. Although I do agree that’s crazy that the creditor had to pay $30,000 for cashing $575 check the person who owed him money actually gave to him. Shows how serious as stay can be but I don’t think it applies to Omar.
Also whilst your comments are not locked. You say how much you hate liars and that you wouldn’t represent LO if you found out she lied. The prosecutors report showed multiple examples of LO lying and purchasing HCG, impersonating a doctor, photoshopping videos, using other people’s ultrasounds, pregnancy videos, having sex with other person around the same time as Clayton to name just a few. How can you continue to try and say everyone else is lying and LO and you aren’t. At least just admit she did lie but say you don’t care and that you are choosing to support her and represent her regardless because saying that LO isn’t a liar and she wants to put this all behind her is not true. If she wanted to put it all behind her she would admit her lies and stop trying sue, punish and torment her victims and anyone who tries to support and help her victims.
Until you apologize for letting Laura go on your youtube and say that no one outside of jfc could see any of the men as her “victims” I will not consider a thing you say. The popularity of the podcast and the opinion of the listeners shows that 99.9% of people disagree with Laura’s statement.
You want to show you care about the truth? Maybe start with apologizing for your part in this. If you had just stayed her lawyer, there would be nothing to apologize for. But you went way past that line, and continue to support an individual who has hurt so many people and refuses to take any accountability. Any respect I had for you is gone.
I genuinely don’t know what you are referring to when you said: “no one outside of jfc could see any of the men as her ‘victims'”. But look — whatever was said/done years ago is in the past. Were mistakes made? Almost certainly yes. And while you can call Clayton a “victim”, he appears to be the happiest victim I’ve ever seen. He was HATED as the Bachelor. He is now basking in the glow of perpetual sympathy for all his “suffering”, and he seems to be loving EVERY minute of it. How many interviews has he done? How many social media posts? You can’t count them all. I am not saying I approve of everything, but I will sure as shit say this — Laura Owens is the best thing that ever happened to Clayton. She completely changed his life for the better, in virtually every way. She transformed him from the hated villain to the beloved victim. It’s actually been astonishing to watch. Since all this started in 2023, tell me ONE ACTUAL NEGATIVE THING that Clayton has suffered. Here, I will help — he was mildly annoyed for a few days after Laura went to The Sun. But then JFC came to his rescue, and that changed everything. Clayton is now a hero, loved by all, supported by everyone. And what has Laura suffered? The absolute complete and total loss of her life. Financial ruin. Criminal charges. Destroyed reputation. Even though she tried to drop the case, while Clayton dragged her through it all…with the help of a bent judge and a dishonest lawyer. It’s literally the most insane story ever, but not for the reasons everyone thinks.
David…you don’t think the months of torture laura put him through was enough? And guess what? Any positives that came from this for clayton is Laura’s own fault since she was the one who took this public. How is any of this on clayton when laura refused to leave him alone for months, tried to lie to the public and convince them he was a deadbeat dad to fake twins, then the public questioned her story and figured out she lied. How is that on clayton?
Laura made the decision to fake medical evidence and lie to the court, clayton, and the public. She weaved a web of lies and she is now facing consequences for it while taking zero accountability. And she is still lying, David. The lying is not just in the past! The bankruptcy proceeding has shown that. I don’t understand how you can defend her when all she does is lie.
Clayton has talked about the ways his mental health suffered. I still don’t particularly care for him but I don’t think he ever deserved this! As someone pointed out above- SHE started this. This could all END if she admitted to however many felonies they want her to (which isn’t even probably half of them) and dropped the DVRO renewal like most people would. She’s not going to jail unless she goes to trial (most likely.) She could make all this go away too. Clayton isn’t to blame for HER lies and mistakes.
Scale it for me… Who do you hate more: Woodnick or Omar?
Woodnick 1000000%. No comparison. Omar is a like a mosquito buzzing around your ear. Annoying but largely harmless. Woodnick is different. Woodnick actually caused massive damage to Laura, to me, and to the legal system as a whole. Woodnick lied to the court, he lied to me, and he did things he had no legal right to do (and has gotten away with them so far). I would care more about this, except I give up. The Arizona bar has proven that it absolutely doesn’t care about the rules…not even .000001%. They know Woodnick lied. They know Mata did what she did. They could not care less. And I can’t play in a rigged system like this, so I’m out. It would be disappointing, but I am at the age where most lawyers pull the plug anyway, so that’s the plan. Makes it easier to walk away when I no longer give a shit.
Thank you for the response! It is appreciated. While I don’t necessarily agree with your feelings on Omar (his writings sound good to me!) it appears that you were correct about what you said based on his recent withdrawal of the motion.
Also thanks for the explanation regarding pro bono work. I work with a lot of underserved individuals…it would certainly be nice if something were put in place that gives everyone access to a lawyer when needed! Your response did bring up a curious though. I believe you when you say Laura paid you……but I’m confused on how she did? You both frequently speak about how she has no income and no money. You’ve stated that she’ll never pay Clayton because she doesn’t have the money. But if she is continually paying lawyers (I’m assuming she’s paying her current lawyer) can someone come after her and “make” her pay him? Or at least not allowed her to be spending money in certain areas unless she pays him?
Lastly (since you are being nice with responding to me)….I frequently see everyone making comments about how you said you would drop Laura if you ever heard her lie. I should first state that my opinions about everything are vastly different in the rest of JFC. That’s the reason why I don’t consider myself part of JFC….they’d probably hate me for my differing opinions BUT I do think it is obvious that Laura lied about certain factual things (ie: she said she absolutely was not intimate with anyone for over a year before Clayton, but obviously the MACO investigation found otherwise…..ie2: The video that MACO found that it was not Laura’s belly being rubbed by her dad), ect….. I understand that these lies don’t necessarily change the outcome of what you Believe to be the big picture (Laura was pregnant) BUT do those lies make you question anything? Have you ever asked Laura about why she lied about these things?
First, I really do ALWAYS try to be nice to people. I honestly do. If you start out being nice to me, I will always be nice back…even if you say something I don’t agree with. Everyone is entitled to their own views, so I never get mad just because someone supports one side or the other (I only get mad when people spread intentionally false info). Having said that, one of the most common questions people ask me is why I didn’t drop Laura. In fact, the “Bar Guy” (Jim Lee) asked me that exact question in my deposition a couple weeks ago. Since I just got the transcript from that deposition, I will give you Jim’s exact question and my exact response…and I apologize for the fact this is all run together in one paragraph….somehow you can’t do paragraph breaks in these comments. Jim Lee: “At any time during your representation of Laura Owens, did you consider whether it would be appropriate· for you to withdraw as her counsel given the various versions of events she provided?” ME: “Yes.” Jim Lee: “Why did you determine not to withdraw?” ME: “Because the State Bar ethics hotline told me I did not need to….” LOOK — the issue is very complicated, and it also asks for a little too much attorney/client information that I am not able to provide. But what I can tell you is this — first, the things you point out in your comment were NOT things I knew about at the time. MCAO only dug up evidence of that stuff later. As for the inconsistent statements that I knew about before trial, I did not believe (and still don’t think) that any of those things were “material” to the outcome of the case. Judge Mata disagreed with me, as did the Court of Appeals, but I remain absolutely steadfast in my view — what should have happened here was Mata should have allowed Laura to drop the paternity case. Laura was not pregnant as of December 2023, and there were no family law issues left to resolve. If Laura had lied, Clayton could have sued her in normal civil court, and in that situation, the case would have been decided by a jury (not by a judge trying to impress her father), and the remedies allowed would have been MUCH different. For one thing, in a normal civil case, Woodnick could never have recovered attorney’s fees…those just are not available in this type of civil case. So the bottom line here is I think Mata and the Court of Appeals got this 100% wrong, and under my view of the law, nothing that Laura said or did during the family part of the case should have mattered. I know that confuses a lot of people, but it’s a technical point of law that I remain convinced is correct. But sitting here nearly two years later, who freaking cares? Can’t we all just move on?
Thanks for confirming with your actions something some have suspected for a while. Your JFC source is none other than the JFC Instagram account themselves! The court docket in California doesn’t even show the Motion for withdrawal listed as of Midnight Pacific time yet they posted the document on their Instagram story hours prior. How did they have the document? My guess is you guys do favors for each other. Shame on whoever that person is but they revealed themselves as your JFC source by this action.
When you stop and think about it, you can’t really trust ANYTHING anyone says/does online. You *THINK* this is David Gingras typing this reply…because this is his website. But you really have no idea — maybe Gingy retired to Europe months ago, and handed over access to a third party who is writing these comments for him. In fact, maybe Laura is running this whole site. That would be cool. Actually, maybe Laura and Clayton have conspired to create this entire story….purely for social media fame. Maybe Laura and Clayton planned this from the start….and they are still running everything behind the scenes. They hired actors to play Dave Neal and other YouTubers who then made money by constantly posting about this story, except the whole story is a social media hoax. When you really stop and think about it, you just can’t trust anything you see/hear/read online. But no, the JFC IG person isn’t my source…although actually that IS possible. I get lots of anonymous emails from folks. I even joked with an anonymous person recently that I thought they were Clayton….and who knows, maybe it was.
Since you’re replying I guess I’m curious. Do you have any regrets in this case or things you wish you would have done differently? I understand if you can’t answer due to lawyer stuff.
He called the State Bar Ethics Hotline and they told him not to withdraw!!!! hahaha this is too good. We need to see that depo transcript of his asap. In its entirety. Can’t wait.
But my god, they really are practically the same person him and Laura, aren’t they. How on earth did Laura stumbled on the literal lawyer version of her? This is almost too impossible to believe…She must have held auditions or something.
Here’s a conspiracy theory he didnt list in his other comment: what if he is a failed actor whose entertainment career didn’t work out so mommy paid for him to get a law degree. And this is his ultimate break and final claim to fame. Just his psychotic explanation of why Laura is the best thing to happen to Clayton is all you need to know about the guy. Him and Laura are obsessed with being famous and being talked about, her former friend even confirmed it on the final episode of Love Trapped. No publicity is bad publicity. I mean, what can you do? I guess everyone got their wish here, Clayton managed to persere despite her trying to ruin his life and is truly in a good place now that justice was served and Laura and Gingy are going to be the famous villains, one without a bar license to hopefully never again be able to practice law with the broken moral compass and bordering on criminal dishonesty, and the other hopefully in prison…..and still trying to make sure their names are out there for years to come…. truly a fairy tale ending that I envision for everyone involved 🙂
Also, Gingy, tell me then about Mike, is Laura the best thing to happen to him too? How is he and his family better off now than betore? She continues to drag him through court and costing him financial hardship. But we are supposed to feel sorry for HER.
Oh wait. Mistakes were made, let’s just all move on. Breadsticks for everyone. Enjoy your weekend.
Are you “required” to file a notice of candor now that some of those things came out with the investigation? Or does it not matter technically since it would change The fact that she was saying she was no longer pregnant and wanted to dismiss it?
I think that’s something in the court of public opinion is looking for… But I was curious if there’s an actual expectation on the legal side of things
I saw someone mention this on x, but I don’t respond on there because I don’t like people to know who I am because these JFC people and Laura are both kind of crazy LOL
This is a very fair question, and I know it is easy to misunderstand…because what people THINK the rule should be is not what the rule actually IS. Here is the rule –
the “duty of candor” ENDS when the case is over and the time to appeal has expired
. Don’t take my word for it; here is the rule (scroll down and look at comment 13 where it says “Duration of Obligation”): https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/?r=Y&RuleId=40&rule=3.3%20Candor%20Toward%20the%20Tribunal So to answer your question — the duty of candor imposed by ER 3.3 ended LONG ago. The case is over, the appeal is done. I have no duty to correct anything. In fact, per ER 1.6, it would be improper for me to correct anything at this point.
Your life seems to be so significantly negatively impacted by this case. Do you wish you had never met Laura I? I think you’re an intelligent person, but for the life of me I can’t fathom why you remain so committed to a client whose behavior is so appalling. This is not a first amendment issue. There is no protection for a serial liar and vexatious person. Is this a case of sunken cost fallacy
Lawyers are licensed to mediate and defend which requires an ability to debate laws and procedures. Laura hired you to do just that. While some here adamantly disagree with how you have defended her, you did what you were paid to do. Are you a nice guy? Is it a requirement to be an attorney? I really do not care but when your 1A rights cross into threats, that is a not acceptable in your role as her advocate. Disagreeing does not require personal attacks. You can spin facts to support Laura’s claims, do it. It must be exhausting to keep up with her claims that are proven to be revised because her communications and behavior expose her as being untruthful. Actions have consequences. Consider using your nice side to convince Laura to get help for her extreme weight loss. No one, including her victims, the cult or those of us watching this from afar, want to see her in that state.
There are exemptions for nondischargeable debts.