A while ago, I wrote a post with bullet points that Laura’s critics have passed off as truth. The third point on that list was:
3.) Clayton says Laura has “done this to other men”
I’m going to skip Point 2 for now, and let’s talk about Point 3 — “Laura has done this to other men”. Sounds bad, right? But is it true? Let’s talk about that….
One of the “other men” frequently discussed is a guy name Michael Marraccini (she calls him “Mike”, so I’ll use that for now). If you have followed the story, you will know the Cult claims Laura faked being pregnant with Mike, and every time that story is repeated, it’s spoken about as if this is a statement of true facts. LAURA LIED ABOUT MIKE’S BABY! But is it true?
Before I get into the details, there is something VERY important you need to understand. Have you ever seen a TV show or a movie about a court case, and one of the lawyers jumps up and shouts: “Objection! Foundation!” Do you know what this means?
I’ll explain. When a lawyer objects to foundation (or lack of foundation), that’s our shorthand way of saying we don’t believe the witness has been shown to have something called “personal knowledge“. OKAY, what’s so special about personal knowledge?
This is Law School 101 stuff, but basically the Rules of Evidence say a witness can ONLY testify about things IF that person first shows they have “personal knowledge” of the subject matter they want to discuss. This comes straight from Rule 602 of the Rules of Evidence (that link is for the AZ rules, but the federal rules are identical).
Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.
That text is pretty dry, so let me paraphrase — witnesses aren’t allowed to blow smoke out of their ass. If a witness wants to say something is true, they first have to answer ONE question: how do you know that?
Here’s an example of how this works in practice. Let’s say you are involved in a case and you want to prove it snowed in Hawaii on December 25, 2023. So, you call a witness to the stand and ask them: “Witness, did it snow in Hawaii on December 25, 2023?”
If this happened in court, your opposing counsel would immediately object. Why? Lack of foundation.
This is how a lawyer tells the judge you haven’t met the requirements of Rule 602 because you have not shown the witness has personal knowledge of this issue. You haven’t explained, how this person knows that?
But this problem is easily fixed. Just like this (before asking anything about the weather): “Mr. Witness, were you physically present in the State of Hawaii on December 25, 2023, and were you in a position to SEE the weather conditions on that date?”
Assuming the witness says yes, you then ask if they saw any snow in Hawaii on that date. With that simple intro, you satisfied the requirements of Rule 602 by proving the witness was in a position to see the weather in Hawaii. You answered the question: how do you know what the weather was like in Hawaii? This quick little bit of foundation shows the witness has personal knowledge of the weather conditions in Hawaii on the date in question.
I know that’s boring and technical, but trust me – IT MATTERS. Again, this is basic Law School 101 level stuff, but if a witness can’t show they have personal knowledge of a THING, that witness will NOT be allowed to testify about that THING. PERIOD. I have literally won entire cases based on that one simple rule.
As the example shows, establishing personal knowledge is usually not a big deal. If you want to ask a witness about Topic X, before you dive into that topic, you just need to lay some foundation showing the witness HAS personal knowledge of Topic X. It’s easy (assuming the witness knows what they are talking about), but most non-lawyers would never think about this.
OK, with that boring intro behind us, let’s get back to the story of Mike Marraccini, and why his deposition transcript is so completely devastating for the anti-Laura crew. The full transcript is at the end of this post, but I’ll give you a summary.
Mike and Laura met through an online dating app in early 2016 (he talks about this on page 27 of his depo, and he’s not 100% sure of the date, or which app…but neither of those points are important). At that time, both Mike and Laura were living in San Francisco. Laura has told me she and Mike dated for “a couple years”, but the exact start and end dates aren’t clear from the records I’ve seen. For now, just assume this relationship lasted for at least a year, probably a while longer (basically from early 2016 through late 2017).
In mid-2016 Laura got pregnant. This was a medically-confirmed pregnancy with multiple records to support it, including HCG tests and an ultrasound. At the time, Laura and Mike were both in their mid-20s. They both felt they were too young to have kids, so they decided abortion was the best option.
Laura went to Planned Parenthood in July 2016 where she was given Mifepristone (a pill to medically terminate the pregnancy). Unfortunately, the first pill didn’t work (not unusual), and Laura continued to test positive for pregnancy. This resulted in her going back to Planned Parenthood a few weeks later (with Mike). Again, plenty of records exist to support all of this.
According to Laura, this was NOT an issue of her “getting pregnant twice” (and certainly not faking pregnancy twice). She got pregnant with Mike ONCE, and it took a couple of doctor’s visits to terminate the pregnancy. Mike participated in all this, and was fully aware that Laura WAS pregnant, and they jointly made the decision to terminate it. Here’s a Planned Parenthood record showing the follow-up trip, and Laura also discusses this at length in a declaration I’m adding to the end of this post. Importantly, Laura’s declaration was written back in 2018, LONG before this whole mess with Clayton ever happened.
Unlike Clayton, the pregnancy and abortion was NOT the end of Laura’s relationship with Mike. They continued dating for many more months, and yes Laura will admit she struggled with some emotional issues during that time. That’s hardly unusual, especially when you understand how Mike treated her.
During their relationship, Laura was extremely generous with Mike. She paid to take him to Dubai. She bought him expensive gifts including a $10,000 watch. She claims Mike even called her his “sugar mama”.
On December 30, 2016, Laura paid for a trip to Iceland with Mike. According to Laura’s declaration (at the end of this post): “The [Iceland] trip cost at least $15,000, and I emptied my childhood savings account to pay for it.”
Laura & Mike in Iceland
While Laura and Mike may have looked like a happy couple on the outside, according to Laura, Mike had a very dark and abusive side. In her declaration filed in California back in 2018, Laura described the verbal abuse she received from Mike on the flight back from Iceland. This abuse was witnessed by a fellow passenger (a complete stranger) who later confirmed Laura’s version of what occurred:
After Iceland, according to Laura, things went from bad to worse. According to her sworn declaration filed in court in California, Mike began physically assaulting her, including “strangling” her during sex and verbally abusing her.
Laura eventually ended the relationship with Mike in late 2017. She claims he began stalking her as a result. Fearful for her safety, in January 2018, Laura applied for a restraining order against Mike. Here’s a complete copy of the file from that case.
Now having said all this, you may be asking yourself — “Hang on, so Laura claims Mike was an abusive boyfriend. So what? You haven’t explained why any of this ‘guarantees’ a win for Laura.” And that’s right, I haven’t explained it yet, so I’ll do that right now.
At the start of this post, I explained the concept (and the rule) which requires proof a witness has personal knowledge of something before they are allowed to testify about anything. Remember that?
Now, keeping the concept of “personal knowledge” in mind, go back and read through Mike’s deposition. Show me a SINGLE example of him offering any explanation to show how he has personal knowledge of Laura faking being pregnant. YOU CAN’T, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. And FYI – personal knowledge means PERSONAL knowledge. Hearing something from a 3rd party is hearsay, not personal knowledge.
Look specifically at his discussion of the pregnancy between pages 45-47 of the depo transcript. As you read this, try to ask yourself: “OKAY, the witness is saying he doesn’t think Laura was pregnant, BUT HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? How does he personally know she was not pregnant?” Remember, a witness can’t say it snowed in Hawaii on Christmas 2023 unless they first prove they were in Hawaii on that date, so again, ask yourself what proof does Marraccini offer to show he peesonally KNEW Laura lied about being pregnant?
Mike is very clear about how he knows that — HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. He offers nothing but pure speculation. None of this even comes close to clearing the hurdle of personal knowledge. In fact, he even says (repeatedly) he believes she probably WAS pregnant, “the first time”. But he apparently forgot the “first time” was, in fact, the ONLY time. Maybe he has memory or mental issues, but the records on this are clear — Laura was only pregnant ONCE with Mike, but she had to go back a couple of times after the pills didn’t work the first time. That’s probably why Mike thinks it was two pregnancies. It wasn’t. It was just one, and in his own words, Mike admits he thought she probably was pregnant. OOPS.
Folks, it doesn’t get much clearer than that. Mike doesn’t have personal knowledge of ANYTHING regarding Laura “faking” a pregnancy. If he tried to say that at trial in our case, I’d object to a lack of foundation and, separately, that he’s just speculating about this. If Mike suddenly develops a shocking new level of clarity about this, I hope he can explain why he answered differently in his deposition SIX YEARS AGO.
NOTE – Laura informs me Mike’s story about her father somehow “admitting” Laura lied about being pregnant is also 100% false. I haven’t met Laura’s dad (yet), but I’ll go ahead and verify his side of things as soon as I can. But if the evidence stays this way moving forward, Laura’s critics are going to have a very, very hard time avoiding liability for defamation.