Let’s Talk About Lies – Part 2

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.


MarracciniDepo LauraCADeclaration

This Post Has 119 Comments

  1. Not Ugly

    Mike is way too good looking for her horse face. That’s all. Also, he never abused her, he just didn’t want to date her because she ugly.

    1. Lauren

      Please don’t insult her appearance. First of all, she’s really not unattractive. You’re just saying that to be mean. Second, it does nothing to help Clayton’s case. I find all the filings and discussion interesting, which is why I read here. I don’t believe Laura was pregnant either (just my speculative personal opinion based on publicly available filings), but it takes a tremendously low amount of self-restraint to still be a decent human being and not hurl unnecessary insults at her (specifically on a blog she is most likely reading). Going out of your way to hurt her will not help you. You can do better than this.

  2. Bystander

    I’m embarrassed for you, David. You took on the case of someone that nobody believes, claimed that you would drop her as a client if you found out she lied, and yet you keep digging yourself into an even deeper hole. You know that she lied. In fact, you say ‘so what if she lied’. You keep finding the most minute technicalities in the legal filings to attempt to have things thrown out to procure a win for yourself, as if there’s any honor to be had in winning that way.

    You KNOW that she lied. But now you’re in too deep, and you keep lining your pockets while draining Clayton’s AND Laura’s. You don’t care about the truth, you care about winning. And that is the dirtiest, scummiest thing that a defense attorney can do. Do you have no shame? You KNOW this woman was not pregnant and that she attempted to extort Clayton. I hope that one day you feel guilt and shame that is palpable, that it all presses down heavily on your conscience. You will never be seen as a hero in this; only an slimy, immoral embarrassment to the justice system. Shame on you for not giving your client what she actually needs, which is to stop indulging in this ridiculous fantasy that she, and she alone, created. She needs help, not for someone to encourage her to continue a losing battle.

    How long will you allow your integrity to be overshadowed by your refusal to accept that you were wrong?

    1. A nobody blog reader

      Today Thursday May 9th it sure seems like ( in my opinion) that you & your client are headed upstream without a paddle!
      The many years of habitual non truth from Laura is coming out.
      Hopefully, this lawsuit will finally open your clients eyes, as well as her family & get her some much needed long term committed help!

    2. Amy

      Agree. His recent threats to Mike of arrest if appearing at trial is his latest low. Then, realizing it was in writing to another lawyer and “withdrawing” in correspondence to Woodneck. I hope AZ Bar Review is eying this blog, his hostility, threats and unprofessionalism and DO SOMETHING.

  3. Beth

    David, I keep forgetting to ask: to win the biggest defamation case in AZ history, wouldn’t Laura have to prove very high financial damages? What are the ways Laura is experiencing financial loss as a result of the defamation you are alleging? Thanks for your correspondence!

    1. David Gingras


      I appreciate the question, and I know you probably think Laura would have to prove “high financial damages”. That is actually NOT how defamation works. This area is complicated enough to fill multiple textbooks with all the rules, exceptions, and examples, so let me just give you a very short summary (and this is coming from a guy who has litigated hundreds of defamation cases).

      In this situation, if Laura wanted to sue Clayton (or any of the bloggers/vloggers accusing her of faking her pregnancy), she actually does not have to prove ANY financial loss at all. The speech in question is SO offensive and so inherently harmful to Laura’s reputation that it’s what we call “defamation per se“. In a case like that, you CAN recover actual economic losses, but a jury is also allowed to award money for other things including emotional distress, harm to reputation (past and future), and here’s the key thing — the jury can also award punitive damages (damages that only serve to punish the defendant).

      If you don’t practice in this area, you may not realize it, but if you attack someone the way Clayton and his followers have attacked Laura, the sky is basically the limit when it comes to damages. A jury could EASILY say that Clayton’s attacks were so vicious and so malicious that Laura should recover $10 million in emotional distress, $10 million in reputational harm, and $100 million (or more) in punitive damages. So yes, a judgment of $120 million (or more) is EASILY within the realm of possibility here.

      And don’t just take my word for it. Just a few months ago, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was sued for defamation after he said two ladies in Georgia did stuff to rig the election there. His claims were false, and he repeated them over and over and over (just like Clayton’s fan). The two ladies sued Rudy for defamation, and a jury awarded them $148 million in damages:

      This just goes to show how online defamation is no laughing matter. Assuming Laura wins this case at trial, my expectation is that she will sue Clayton (and many others), and I’m guessing $120 million will be on the low end of what I expect a jury will award. And one other important thing to note — unlike most other kinds of debts, defamation damage awards CANNOT be discharged in bankruptcy. That means if Laura sued Clayton for defamation and won, he would not be able to avoid paying her by filing bankruptcy. Yes, it is always possible a jury could give a smaller award, but if they come back with something in the tens of millions, the defendants will be stuck paying that judgment for the rest of their lives.

      Of course, truth is a defense….so maybe if Clayton has clear and convincing proof that everything he said is true, then he’ll be fine. But if I was in his shoes, I would NOT take that kind of risk.

      1. Fiverrr Babies

        How would Laura prove that what is being said is “not true” if she has produced none of the documents to prove they are false? what is your opinion on her editing the sonogram on Fiverrr?

        1. David Gingras

          I don’t get why people think Laura has “no documents” to back up her story? Actually, that’s wrong — I DO know why people think that; it’s because certain folks have published false statements over and over and over claiming that Laura has no documents. This is just only making Laura’s defamation claim stronger, because it shows how powerful a lie can be. People literally think they’re hearing the truth, when actually it’s just lies.

          As for Fiverr, I don’t know what that’s all about? As I’ve said before, I am NOT watching any videos about this case at the moment (I just don’t have time; I DO have other clients). If you can explain what the story is with Fiverr, I’m happy to look into it, but I assume it’s just more lies from the liars who keep on lying.

          1. Genuine question pls answer

            How can you explain how Clayton is less credible if she has admitted to lying in court. & You yourself have said she isn’t credible? Why would anyone believe Laura? She also has 4 victims, two of them who have identical stories, what would they have to gain from this?

      2. Anonymous

        Question regarding the explanation of the defamation. Wouldn’t there be a concern of jury NOT agreeing…. Simply just seeing that obviously public is currently not on her side….. What would make one think that could change in a defamation case related to the same issues? And if that was a concern, could you do it without a jury? I was confused about this correct case not having a jury and if there was a reason why

        1. David Gingras

          I am not sure if I understand the question? In any case involving a jury, there is ALWAYS a chance the jury may not agree with your position. That’s the exact reason we have juries — so a group of people can look at disputes and decide what they think happened.

          This is also why Clayton’s paternity case is actually in the wrong court. A family judge has no jurisdiction to decide civil claims like defamation. This is an argument Laura’s first lawyer raised, properly, and it is an issue I will continue to raise in this case. Clayton is acting like this is a civil defamation case where Laura is the defendant. That would be FINE, except the family court has no jurisdiction to rule on civil claims, especially when both parties have a constitutional right to a jury trial. This is an issue I’ll be submitting further briefing on when the time comes.

      3. BS

        The discovery would be so broad in your lawsuit it would cripple Laura’s chances at success. The prior victims will all parade their evidence of similar deceit patterns, the jury will hear about every single thing she fabricated in her attempted to secure a relationship, man after man. Emotional damages? She will never agree to open that door, the entire history of her psychology/psychiatry records will be fair game. Her parents and family will crumble under the terrible pressure of subpoenas and testimony.. one subpoena for her historical pharmaceutical records and one subpoena to hear health insurance carrier will reveal all the mental health treatment she’s sought and what for.

        The defamation you keep saying you will sue for is a well founded belief based on evidence. – evidence which will be fully admissible in any defamation case brought..

        A jury could award her damages, but it’s far more likely that they will conclude Laura is a liar who perpetuated fraud against multiple men, and that media and public had a well founded belief to call her a liars, say she’s tampered and presented false records to perpetuate her scheme.

        If I were her, I wouldn’t take that chance.

  4. Bobby

    So David, I can’t testify that the mailman delivered the mail if I didn’t see them? Even if there was no mail in the mailbox this morning but there was mail in box when I got home, and a mail truck parked on my street? Serious question.

    1. David Gingras

      You’re actually correct. If you didn’t personally see the mailman put stuff into your box, you lack personal knowledge of how your mail arrived. But to be fair, this rule DOES allow for SOME flexibility. If you went to bed and the street was dry, and then you woke up in the morning and saw the street was wet, most judges will allow you to say “It rained last night” even if you never personally saw the rain falling. But on the other hand, the more important an issue is to a case, the less flexibility is given on the issue of personal knowledge.

      I’m not kidding when I say this issue is so important, I’ve won entire cases based on just a single witness lacking personal knowledge.

      The bottom line here is that if one of Laura’s ex-boyfriends claims “she faked being pregnant”, that person MUST explain HOW THEY KNOW THAT. Clayton is TRYING to claim he knows she was never pregnant because “I didn’t actually stick it in,” but that’s an incredibly weak argument. Our expert with 30+ years of experience will testify that when a penis, sperm, and a vagina are in close proximity, a woman can get pregnant even without actual penetration (I will bet you anything Clayton’s own experts will agree with that statement).

      1. Theodora

        Isn’t “it’s possible” kinda a weak argument regarding your expert’s testimony? Does this concern you, especially considering your statement that “the more important an issue is to a case, the less flexibility is given” above? Not trying to be an A hole, just curious.

      2. JIM

        Well yes, and I read some of what your expert will attest to. Lets see, it was a girl named Mary or Maria or something who he aided in giving “virgin birth” to on or around Christmas, possibly in an emergency situation in a stable. I am not sure I got that 100%, but I haven’t brushed up on my readings in Matthew and Luke. Yes, I have heard of the aggressive sperm that survive the hostile environments two get to the egg. The olympic ones that run, jump, and even pole vault.

      3. Trippy

        This is a true and a known thing “when a penis, sperm, and a vagina are in close proximity, a woman can get pregnant even without actual penetration” The risk of getting pregnant in this way is VERY LOW because sperm can only live for a short time outside the body (don’t know exact percentage) what makes it even less likely is Laura suffers PCOS.
        From NHS UK website ‘PCOS is one of the most common causes of female infertility. Many women discover they have PCOS when they’re having difficulty getting pregnant.
        During each menstrual cycle, the ovaries release an egg (ovum) into the uterus (womb). This process is called ovulation and usually occurs once a month.
        But women with PCOS do not ovulate or ovulate infrequently, which means they have irregular or absent periods and find it difficult to get pregnant which makes it EXTREMELY unlikely.’ So if you take no penetration issue and add PCOS infertility issue add them together =
        It should be very easy to show original ultrasound from Planned Parenthood if all laura took a screenshot then I would assume the actual Planned Parenthood should have an original in their medical files or at least a written record which staff member performed ultrasound, who took Laura’s vitals like how many embryos there were, how far along she was and also that she didn’t not to take abortion pills.

  5. Sarah

    When are you going to address her lying a little having ovarian cancer?

  6. Lonni

    I am confused, Lauras critics are going to face defamation? So you can’t question, have an opinion, or be a critic of this apparently very entitled person without facing a lawsuit? Hmmm, never knew someone was so special.

    1. David Gingras

      You can absolutely have an opinion. That is 100% protected by the First Amendment. Knowingly spreading false information is not protected, and that is what a LOT of people have done while talking about this case. It’s fine though. They will have their day in court and I’m sure “I saw it all on Reddit” will be a strong defense with the jury.

      1. Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide

        Now now Gingras, don’t be a hypocrite, you defended Dirty.com. Your words “It was clear to me Dr. Phil did not understand the legal situation (under the law, website owners like Nik are not liable for what people post on their sites, just like Mark Zuckerberg is not liable for what you post on Facebook). And although the law was 100% on our side, Dr. Phil didn’t see it that way.” So you should know that social media platforms are private companies and are not bound by the First Amendment. They have their own First Amendment rights. This means they can moderate the content people post on their websites without violating those users’ First Amendment rights. It also means that the government cannot tell social media sites how to moderate content. WITH THAT BEING SAID, No one is posting false information, Gingras. The journalists and other professional forums have put in the work and time to narrow down every lie your client has made by her statement photoshopped documents and lies on top of lies to show that you and your client are liars.

        1. Lying Liars

          THIS!!! love how he hasn’t answered to any of the comments PROVING she is lying

          1. You won’t

            Says a lot when you pick and choose which exhibits to show. Show the rest if you’re so confident.

        2. David Gingras

          I’m not sure what your point is here. I’ve never threatened to go after any social media companies. I’ve spent more than 15+ years defending the law (the Communications Decency Act) that protects online platforms, so I know better than anyone, you can’t sue YouTube because of false statements in a user-created video.

          But you CAN sue the content creators themselves. If you post something false, you’re responsible for what you said, and it’s not a really strong defense to say “Well, a bunch of people on Reddit said this is true, so I thought it was OK to trust them.”

      2. Lonni

        Name one false information that has been spread that you choose to follow? I will start simply, are you going after Megan Fox, Legal Vices, or Mike Gravlin? Will you go after an actual attorney, real journalist or just random online followers who have an opinion? I only say this because Gravlin laughed your client off online like an insect flicked to the side.. Show some balls and go after them all! Gravlin made your client look so dumb it changed this case. Are you afraid to face off with him? “Who’s your daddy” videos brought most the interest to this case. Why are you not after him?

        1. David Gingras

          I have no idea who Gravlin is? Never heard of this person.

          1. File a Class Action Lawsuit fellas!

            I feel like the comments he replies to are comments by him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is posing as others, who ask questions that allow him to provide the commentary he chooses to provide. He doesn’t reply to any of the comments that question the irreconcilable “evidence”. She was never pregnant. They never had penetrative sexual intercourse. Does she forget she sent an email to him begging him to date her, and have sex, and she said if they do have sex then he will know she is not lying because he will see how tight she is?? If they actually had sex, WHY WOULD SHE BEG FOR HIM TO HAVE SEX SO HE WOULD KNOW??! I hope Clayton gives his device to the forensic person that was hired to extract info from Mike’s laptop. What I really would like to see is all the men she scammed collectively SUE her! They will be able to get more information in discovery than a family court case would allow. Open the flood gates! Let every man submit everything they have.

            Also, can someone answer why a woman that is financially well, with parents that have money and access, not have a regular gyno/obgyn doctor to go to to get a pregnancy test. I think it’s because she can forge planned parenthood documents more easily. I went to my gyno/obgyn office for both of my pregnancies.

            At this point, the longer she tries to stretch this, the more she looks like a psychopath. I just really hope this blows up in her face hardcore.

            The journalists have always said it is their opinion that she is lying about everything.

          2. David Gingras

            When I post anything, it’s always under my own name. I would never post as another person, and have not done so. That’s totally unethical, and I’m not unethical.

  7. Make it Stop

    You’re taking her word (a known, documented, pathological liar) over contradicting testimony by someone with several corroborating witnesses. And you are the only one that believes her (if you really even do). Her documentation in this case is glaringly forged, like all the others.

    Clayton is her fourth known victim, whom she diabolically and fraudulently sues after being romantically rejected. You’re enabling this abusive (and criminal) behavior. I believe you’re her fifth lawyer on this particular case, because all the others swiftly quit when they got up to speed on the case and surely realized she was perpetrating a scam. You must like the attention that comes with this high profile case, and have no scruples as to whether or not it’s ethical to continue to empower a sadistic malefactor destroying those that spurned her attention. The moral choice would be to withdraw, like all the others before you, and counsel her to seek additional psychiatric treatment.

  8. Trisha D

    Dude…. The FAT Lady has sung!! You are NOT helping Laura in any way, shape or form by pretending an attorney is where her money is best spent at this late stage in the game. It’s very sad to me that you continue to gaslight everyone into believing you believe the “inconsistencies” after years and years of the same behavior. This is the very definition of insanity- continuing the same behavior over and over and expecting a different outcome. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for arguments sake today and pretend everything you’ve presented is true, and in both cases true or false, common sense needs to enter this scenario and understand she needs a mental health provider, not an attorney !!! This is becoming too uncomfortable for me as a bystander watching this ten car pile up in real time. It’s wrong and it’s very sad watching you take advantage of this case. At this juncture you are looking worse than your client. Stop, get her some real help, then you’ll be the hero this case deserves. I fear if everyone continues to perpetuate this behavior, good or bad, we will all be witnessing a tragedy we will have to live with. This is not okay! Do the right thing and get real help before you’re the cause of a bigger tragedy than pregnancies, abortions and break ups. I will pray for your client, you and all the victims in this case.

  9. Nunya

    Your threats of “dEfAmAtiOn” are lame, at best. Your client is a pathological liar who will soon be held accountable for altering medical documents and theft of ultrasound pictures from a grieving mother’s blog. What a disgusting human- both of you.

  10. Sarah

    Who told her she was having male and female twins? Which provider at which appointment?

    And once again, as long as we’re talking lies, why did she lie about having ovarian cancer and an oophorectomy?

    1. fake babies

      i’m sure it will come out that she doctored the oophorectomy and ovarian cancer documents just like she did the sonograms.

      1. David Gingras

        Let’s see if you’re right. Laura just filed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, saying she had nothing to do with that stuff. If she’s wrong, maybe you will finally get to see her thrown in jail. If she’s lying, I’d be the first one to say lock her up. But for now, I’m going to continue trusting her until someone proves she’s lying (and I don’t mean lying about the sonogram edit – she already admitted that mistake).

        1. Shan

          You have already admitted in your filings with the court that Laura Owens has previously committed perjury by falsifying documents. Is it really a stretch she will do it again? Clearly the threat of perjury doesn’t mean anything to Laura Owens.
          You admitted she lied, why are you not saying lock her up?

          1. He won’t answer these


        2. Just Stop

          Get your head out of your behind, David. Watch the videos. She wore a fake bump to a trial in late October, video posted today. You are being intentionally obtuse when claiming you are too busy to watch videos from the case. Stop draining her pockets and Clayton’s and do your job correctly. Judge Mata is watching all of the prior proceedings, shouldn’t you be doing the same to put up a proper defense? All you care about is winning on a technicality. Slimy, slimy, slimy.

        3. Tom Bant

          So you know that she lied, but you’re ok with it because she admitted it was a lie?

        4. Are you the daddy next??

          Laura just filed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, which MEANS NOTHING, she has lied in every court proceeding she has been a party to. So will the next filing be all the lies she is admitting to? That’s right everyone is lying but Laura. Hope your wife knows Laura will be claiming she is pregnant with your baby next..

        5. Don’t be a coward, answer this

          What is your opinion of the woman who is coming forward as a witness (under penalty of perjury) that Laura stole her ultrasound and UNLIKE LAURA… she actually has PROOF from the MD’s she saw that she was seen by them.

        6. Stolen twin ultrasound

          What is your opinion of the woman who is going to be writing a letter to the judge under penalty of perjury that the ultrasound Laura submitted to the presss was hers? Would that not be considered fraud if she knowingly stole that picture and passed it off to the public & press as hers? And if the meta data leads to her casita, what would that mean? Genuinely asking

        7. Justice for Laura

          She’s admitted to the ‘mistake’ of editing the ultrasound – but the ‘real’ ultrasound hasn’t neither been produced nor authenticated, right? Or are you going to disclose that by Friday? Will it accompany a record custodian affidavit authenticating the records as being Laura’s from a particular date?

        8. Jake

          About that affidavit… can we get a comment on the forensic report?

          1. David Gingras

            It’s 2,500 pages dropped 3 days before the close of discovery. We are in the process of asking the court to exclude this (because disclosure rules don’t permit sandbagging), or alternatively we will have to ask for more time to conduct our own review of these new messages to determine if they are genuine. This is a process and we all need to follow the rules.

        9. You’re wrong David dingus

          Looks like I was right! 🙂

  11. Laura's new victim

    david, what is your opinion of Ron Owens admitting laura makes up stories and lies? that is documented in the text messages from Mike and Mr Owens & Laura and Laura admitted it herself. Also, mike said in his testimony that he never called her his “sugar mama” .

    1. David Gingras

      I haven’t spoken to Mr. Owens yet (I did meet Laura and her mom). Mr. Owens is apparently quite ill with Parkinsons, so I’m trying not to drag him into this if I can avoid it. Laura swears her dad NEVER said anything such thing about her making up stories. Based on what I’ve seen of this family, I’d find that VERY hard to believe. Laura and her mom are very close, and I understand that’s true of the whole family. Laura’s haters are trying to paint these people in a false light. Since you’ve never met any of them, I’d just ask you to reserve judgment until you hear the facts for yourselves.

      1. Fraud is coming

        “Laura swears” isn’t a great argument from a documented liar and person who has many “misstatements.” This was testified by Mike AND Greg under penalty of perjury. Who would believe her?

        1. David Gingras

          But that’s just the thing — it was NOT testified to by ANYONE under penalty of perjury….EXCEPT for Laura. Mike NEVER said he had actual knowledge of Laura faking anything. That is a lie that has been spread by Laura’s haters.

          Don’t take my word for it. READ MIKE’S DEPOSITION. I know the embedded version isn’t that easy to read, so here a direct link where you can download it: https://gingraslaw.com/MarracciniDepo.pdf

          1. Grant Chester

            Wouldn’t this literally follow under the word misstatement which you use? What people say “he has knowledge that she faked pregnancy” vs. what was said in deposition “I believe a pregnancy was fake.” Please explain the difference between a lie and misstatement.

          2. Laura is the liar

            But Clayton and Greg did… majority rules

          3. Honest Question

            Why are you only sharing Mike’s deposition? Why don’t you share Laura’s depositions, if you believe her and believe that she’s so honest?

          4. David Gingras

            If this is appropriate, I’ll post it. Lots of more important things to deal with right now.

  12. Lonni

    Seems like you only want to tango with an audience rather than real lawyers. Where are you lawsuits against Mike Gravlin, Legal Vices, or Negan Fox? Not even a message to cease! Are you afraid to go after the big dogs?

    1. David Gingras

      I’m dealing with one issue at a time. It doesn’t make sense to sue before our trial is over. Once that’s done, the next phase will begin. And for the record — Laura is NOT interested in pursing people just for commenting about the case in good faith. She’s not going after people based on anything posted here. The concern is to go after the big folks who actively spread false information for money. Those are the folks we’ll be talking to down the road.

      1. Sarah

        Which provider told her she was having male and female twins, and when did that occur?

      2. Question

        She would be foolish to do that and I imagine that case will go as far as the one did with Dave Neal… her dropping the case bc she has NO leg to stand on.. he hasn’t even mentioned her name! So funny you’re so pressed by him

  13. Sarah

    Additionally, where did her initial twin ultrasound come from (not the 21 week ultrasound) now that Planned Parenthood has confirmed it did not come from them?

  14. Pregnant in October

    If you have even an ounce of morality, watch this. Tell us how she could possibly appear this pregnant in late October. She also testifies under oath that she is pregnant at that point. Stop ignoring the truth. There are so many people against you because they know the truth. You are just ignoring it.


    1. Halley

      I don’t know how this video can possibly be explained with the July miscarriage date. She stated she was pregnant in the above video and appeared with a large belly. Based on information provided by the petitioners counsel, she was not pregnant here because she had received lab tests days prior indicative of very low HCG levels and had passed tissue nearly three months prior, also indicative of a miscarriage.

      It’s very frustrating to see how malleable the court system can be when you have money, time, and a subscription to Adobe Acrobat.

  15. Anonymous

    Would you be able to give an example specifically related to this case?
    Laura has had multiple medical documents now found to be doctored as well as emails, ECT and she claims all of these were modified or created by others. So what would her foundation be? If she didn’t SEE someone else doing that or WATCH them hack and send….how can it be accept as fact?

    And similarly just curious….when it comes to she said he said how is anything accept as truth? I just feel like on both sides there is a lot of “Laura claims…….”. Or “Clayton claims…..”. Does the judge just get to decide which claim is true?

  16. Kate

    If an individual provides a signed affidavit to a court, and it’s proven that the individual knowingly made false statements on said affidavit, does the person that signed that affidavit face any legal consequences?

  17. Lonni

    You keep saying sonogram “edit”. However, you never explain where the sonogram came from? If you say Planned Parenthood then you are not on top of your case. So where??? Planned Parenthood Mission Viejo does not provide imaging. Where is the darn answer? Where???

    1. David Gingras

      This is a completely reasonable question, and the answer is a both technical and a little complicated. It’s Saturday evening and we have some plans for Cinco de Mayo, so I’ll have to answer this tomorrow. But I DO have an answer, and I appreciate reasonable questions like this.

      1. Lonni

        Now I have never seen an episode of the bachelor and this would have never come across my sights if your client did not take this to the press. I am awed you call it a “Clayton cult” when it is very simple questions like this that haven’t been answered. Also could Laura be found culpable for not getting prenatal care for the precious twins at any point in her 5-7 month pregnancy before claiming she miscarried in January. Well publicly that is when she first claimed it. It is not a cult if your client has credibility issues as you yourself state. Your strong defensive stance to sue the world (or anyone that just reports the facts at present) that questions this makes you look like an ass. This isn’t about money, it should just be about truth. I’m fairly certain that is all anyone wants. Even if your client really thought she was pregnant at filing time, why show up in October for court claiming 100% pregnant with belly. I’m in shock that you don’t get the public’s disbelief. Nobody wants this to be the case, but all signs are pointing one way. It’s not a cult, it’s a desire for truth. Forgiveness will go a million miles if she lied. I’m sure the court case will sum it up, but a simple sonogram shouldn’t be technical and complicated. I’ll wait though.

      2. Beth

        I would be very interested in this comment from you. I hope it really comes today!

      3. Beth

        Hi David, So assuming the sonogram from Planned Parenthood is real like you mention above, will your expert be testifying to the presence of two fetal sacs in the photo? If not, how will you show that the provider of the ultrasound is the source who informed Laura she was pregnant with twins. Additionally, will this info. be disclosed before the deadline?

      4. Justice for Laura

        Sooooooo are you saying… even if Laura is completely a liar, knowingly committing fraud from the beginning, she still cannot be sanctioned based upon Clayton failing to give a safe harbor notice?

        She was well on notice from the onset of his response that she knew or should have known her claims are false and frivolous. A lot of times , even in strict procedure, court’s don’t always need ‘the magic words’ to rule appropriately.

        1. David Gingras

          I have a motion on this exact issue that will be filed tomorrow.

      5. Lonni

        I thought I was going to get a technical and complicated answer to this reasonable question?

  18. Becca

    Hello! I have what I feel to be a well thought out question, so I hope you will take the time to answer. It’s really just out of genuine curiosity…

    You have said that when it comes down to the bottom of this, really all you have to do is prove that Laura in good faith believed she was pregnant. I’m just curious if the same concept would be applied in a defamation case? You have mentioned that you could Sue some of these different reporters for defamation because they are “knowingly spreading lies”. Similar to what you said, couldn’t these reporters state that the information they shared was in good faith because of the information that they had? Meaning that they truly believed that was the truth based on the information they had? I only ask because at least information I’ve seen them share, does have “proof” with it. Now. The proof might not be completely accurate but it’s what they believe to be accurate.

    I guess to give an unrated example to help me understand, it would be like when people get on social media or the news and say that the president has dementia… Could they be sued for defamation? There technically isn’t any medical record proof that he has dementia, but people are stating this opinion based on the observations and things they’ve seen, and they do support it with their “facts”?

    I guess defamation as a whole really confuses me, and seems to be something that takes away people’s rights to share opinions. It’s a confusing argument for me in general because oftentimes the people who are spreading information, whether it be defamatory or not are being pretty mean haha. But everyone has the right to be mean I guess.

    1. David Gingras


      To restate the issue, you asked a question that compared the issue of sanctions (a form of legal/financial punishment Clayton is requesting) with the possibility that Laura may sue some of her critics for defamation. The basic point you were trying to make is (to paraphrase) — aren’t those two things inconsistent? Specifically, I have argued (and plan to argue at trial) the judge cannot punish Laura as long as she had SOME reason to think she MIGHT be pregnant. In other words, even if Laura made a mistake and even if she was never pregnant, she couldn’t be punished for making a good faith mistake.

      Your question was, in essence, whether (or why) that same rule shouldn’t apply to people commenting about the case. Put another way, you are asking whether the law would protect people who said they *think* Laura faked being pregnant, if it turns out that Laura wasn’t faking anything? Aren’t those people allowed to make a good faith mistake when commenting about the case, just as I have argued that Laura is allowed to make a good faith mistake when claiming she was pregnant (bearing in mind — Laura has NEVER said she wasn’t pregnant, so she won’t admit the case against Clayton was groundless).

      I think this is an EXCELLENT question. Among other things, because you are RIGHT — it probably does look a bit inconsistent for me to say that Laura is allowed to make mistakes, but her critics are not.

      I will do my best to explain my views on this, keeping in mind these legal topics are VERY complicated, and it would probably take 100 pages of briefing to explain EVERY aspect of this area of law.

      Here’s the best response I can give you in a reasonably short format:

      First, YOU are correct….SORT OF. But the rules for court sanctions and the rules for defamation are very different….largely because damages caused by bad legal proceedings are normally a lot smaller than the harm caused by publishing false statements that harm a person’s reputation. Harm from bogus legal proceedings are usually minor, while harm to a person’s reputation can be life-changing and often nearly impossible to repair.

      When it comes to punishing people for filing bogus court cases (as Clayton is trying to do to Laura), the law is VERY clear — people ARE allowed to make mistakes. This actually happens all the time. Sometimes the mistake is accidental, and sometimes it’s intentional. But either way, the standard for what a person needs to do in order bring a court case against someone else is VERY, VERY low — if you sue someone, all you need is SOME basis to think your claims are valid. 100% certainty is never, ever required. So as long as Laura believed she MIGHT be pregnant, the court CANNOT sanction her. That’s just the way the rules work.

      In a paternity case (like this) a woman is allowed to bring a case simply because she hooked up with a guy, and she just “felt” pregnant. There is NO requirement that she have any sort of test first. There is NO requirement that her pregnancy be “confirmed” or “validated”. A one night stand and a single missed period is all you need (Laura had that, PLUS five positive pregnancy tests, including one given to her by Clayton which she took directly in front of him).

      But let’s ignore those facts. What if Laura KNOWINGLY lied? Can she be punished then? The answer is kind of surprising — MAYBE YES, AND MAYBE NO.

      Here’s why – because of the way our rules of procedure are set up, people ARE allowed to file cases they know are 100% false/fraudulent (I know that’s shocking, but bear with me). People are allowed to LIE in their papers. They can even commit perjury (in certain situations). I know this because I have personally seen it happen in other cases. It’s even happened to ME (as I explained in my prior post about the time when I was sued for paternity).

      YES, we have rules that say a court can punish someone who lies in their pleadings, but there’s a pretty strict process that must be followed BEFORE any punishment can happen. The idea is that if a person makes a mistake and lies in court, the law wants to give them a way of admitting fault and fixing the problem without facing life-altering consequences. So, the rules basically say if a person lies in their case, you have to give them a written warning FIRST, and you have to give them an opportunity to fix their mistake by withdrawing their claims. If you want to punish someone for bringing a fake/fraudulent case, you MUST do both of those things FIRST. If you don’t, the law literally says the bad guy CANNOT be punished….PERIOD.

      And in this case, it is undisputed Clayton’s lawyer never gave Laura the correct type of warning (the rules are VERY specific, and they must be followed EXACTLY). But Clayton’s lawyer didn’t follow the rules (he has basically admitted this). That means Clayton CANNOT get sanctions against Laura, even if she lied (which she absolutely denies).

      Now, let me address your question about defamation. If Laura is allowed to bring a court case that turns out to be groundless (either because she made a good faith mistake, OR because she knowingly lied but Clayton’s lawyer failed to follow the necessary steps to get sanctions), shouldn’t the same kind of loose standards apply to people who talk about this case? If a person said they believed Laura lied, and it turns out we win the case by proving she did not lie, shouldn’t that person still be protected against getting sued for defamation?

      The answer is (like almost everything in law): MAYBE/IT DEPENDS.

      Defamation is a VERY complicated area of law, but the main thing to know is that YES, the First Amendment DOES give you very strong protection against getting sued. If you say something that is completely true, it is almostimpossible to get sued (but again, there are exceptions to this).

      Generally speaking, there are two main types of defamation cases: 1.) private figure defamation, and 2.) public figure defamation. If you publish something false about a PRIVATE figure (someone who is not a celebrity or politician), the plaintiff usually only has to show that you acted “negligently”. That means you failed to do something that a reasonable person would have done. This is a VERY low standard, and it basically means if you publish something false about a private person, you will probably end up losing UNLESS you can prove you DID act reasonably (again, SUPER complicated, but relying on something you read on a blog or social media MIGHT be reasonable in some cases, but not reasonable in others). That’s basically a decision the jury would have to make.

      Now if the plaintiff is a public figure (usually a celebrity or politician), or if the speech involves a matter of public concern, the rules are different. In those cases, the plaintiff will have to prove the defendant had something called “actual malice”. That term has a special legal meaning that is probably different from what you think. Actual malice means the defendant either knew his/her statements were false, or they acted with “reckless disregard for the truth” (reckless disregard is something higher/worse than simple negligence). Reckless disregard typically means the defendant intentionally ignore information that would have proven their statements were false (basically sticking your head in the sand and refusing to look at evidence that supported the plaintiff).

      Based on these standards, I think it is fair to say that for MOST people commenting on this case, they don’t have to worry about getting sued for defamation. You ABSOLUTELY are allowed to have an opinion (opinions are never grounds for a defamation case). You can even say you THINK one party is right and the other is wrong.

      What you cannot do is make factual statements such as: “Laura lied about being pregnant” or “Laura did this to other men in the past.” Those are not statements of opinion. Those are statements of fact, and the CAN support a defamation claim IF Laura proves she didn’t fake being pregnant, and IF the speaker has the correct mental state (either negligence or actual malice, depending on what a future judge thinks should apply here).

      The bottom line is that when it comes to free speech, people typically CAN make a good faith mistake and not risk liability for defamation. But people who spread false statements of fact because they want to earn money from advertising revenue are not engaging in protected speech. They are committing intentional defamation, and it’s seriously no joke. These attacks have been devastating to Laura, which is why I’m confident that if we win the trial in June, many of her detractors are going to have a lot to answer for.

      1. Tom Bant

        Just to clarify, at some point Laura knew she was lying about being pregnant currently or at least knew she was no longer pregnant but because nobody told her (an adult) that she had to admit to this, she can’t be held responsible?

  19. C

    Dave- there are two questions I have not seen addressed in the filings or your posts:
    1) when did Laura learn she was having twins?
    2) is she claiming the October sonogram is fake?

    1. David Gingras

      Laura says she was told by Planned Parenthood that she was pregnant with twins. This was the ultrasound that she later admitted to editing to change the name of the facility.

      I don’t know what you mean by the “October sonogram”. To my knowledge, there is no “October sonogram”. It’s possible you’re talking about one or more fake sonograms that someone else created and then sent to certain online media people. Laura has denied having anything to do with those, and so far, I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.

      1. Grant Chester

        Have you seen the original ultrasound?

      2. C

        Who told her it was a boy and a girl?

      3. Jennie

        Then what video ultrasound did she testify about? And why didn’t your expert rely on that?

      4. gingrasisactuallyaclayton'cult'member

        Thank you for your info…You make it too easy to find proof against her claims. So for real now, are you defending Laura or Cayton?

      5. Are you the daddy next??

        Will you be representing Laura Owens if the owner of the “sonogram” decides to sue her for falsely claiming that the ‘vanishing twins’ sonogram was hers?

        1. David Gingras

          That isn’t a valid legal claim, so I don’t expect anyone will sue over it.

          1. Are you the daddy next??

            Computer and Internet Fraud The act of defrauding could include altering or deleting records, accessing financial or other information, or obtaining something of value. Isn’t a valid legal claim? Laura stole a medical record for her benefit several valid lawsuits are available through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

      6. JIM

        Ok that makes perfect sense now. Do you know who planted the ultrasound in Laura’s public drop box, then hacked into her email to send an email containing the fake ultrasound to various online personalities, with the exact same email trackers that she uses? Have you filed charges against that suspect? Seems like it could be considered stolen identity.

      7. Nathan

        So you haven’t seen the email Laura sent to a podcaster linking that same ultrasound?
        Strange, because that was in the filing.

        1. David Gingras

          Hard to know what you are referring to, but my understanding is that someone sent an email pretending to be Laura that said “Here is my 100000% real ultrasound” and Laura has always maintained that email is a fake.

          1. Laura is a pathological liar

            What will happen if it’s found that it was sent from her? Just like the forensic team found the texts were sent from Laura to MM??

  20. Sarah

    Still waiting for that explanation on the Planned Parenthood (but not Planned Parenthood) ultrasound…

    Also still waiting for an answer on when she was told she was having boy/girl twins and by which provider. I feel like these are reasonable questions.

  21. PP

    Hi, David. Why no answer for Planned Parenthood denying the ultrasound came from them? Thought we were getting one today.

    1. lonni

      You and me both. Lord knows what the potential answer could be. Someone physically placed a sonogram in her hand. Who was it, and where was it at? This should be the easiest thing in the world.

  22. Lonni

    Well it appears Laura is trying to possibly settle. That might be why we can’t get this basic question answered. However, if a full confession is provided, unconditional forgiveness should follow! Everyone has only asked for this gal to get help. I’ll be the first to say, we are praying for self help only and the truth! However, maybe this is not the deal and it’s a smokescreen????‍♂️ Who knows

    1. PP

      “This is a completely reasonable question, and the answer is a both technical and a little complicated.”

      SO technical and so complicated that it clearly doesn’t exist!

  23. Metadata

    What would you do if the metadata for the 21 week sonogram and 2016 fake ovarian cancer messages came back as linked to Laura? Aka she lied yet on affadavit. Would you drop or continue to represent her?

  24. Mission Viejo

    He won’t answer because he can’t. The only answer is that she lied.

  25. Paul

    Hi David, I have been patiently waiting for the truth to come out. All the way back from when laura went public, she posted to reddit, left links to her drop box & patient portals, and went to the tabloids etc. I was 100% on her side. But David, please put my mind at ease and tell me I’m mistaken, in Laura’s ppo “trial” against Clayton, she told the judge that the sonogram was 100% real & that Clayton was the only other person in the world that had access to that, also the picture of her showing her stomach, she told the judge that only She & Clayton had those picture & the only explanation for them being online was that Clayton leaked them.
    And, as it should, it now only swayed the judge, but quite rightly given those facts, it angered him, which he repeated in his order granting the PPO. Now forget all of the other cult stuff, I know for a fact, because I was supporting laura, that those pictures were available to anyone on reddit, & I can’t get my head around why she lied. The truth is the truth, as of then she didn’t need to lie, so I guess I’m asking why, and if you have spoken to her, at least about that. Thank you for your updates & transparency. Take care

  26. Paul

    ***Not only swayed the judge, but quite rightly given those facts, it angered him, which he reiterated while granting the PPO*** Apologies Typo & grammer

  27. Get Laura Help

    Please read what Paul just said. Most of us were on Laura’s side when it all started. She was responsible for telling us this horrible story that was happening to her. Clayton was one of the most hated bachelors. To have the public change and support him tells a lot in itself. Even If you really believe every other thing she said was true, I see no way to explain why she would lie to a Judge in Court. She claimed the picture she was holding was of their SON!! She sent it to Clayton and the media. Why wasn’t it in her medical records? If you do the honest thing and drop her I hope you encourage her family to get her help. Someone who sues every man who denies them is leading a very sad life. I am extremely worried for her and disappointed her family is too afraid to help. If you want the exact date and timestamp of court video I would be happy to send it to you. (take a look at the picture she is holding in the horrible Halloween costume. That’s the one)

  28. Sarah

    Someone’s gotten awfully quiet in the past few days. Seems very out of character for you, David. Hopefully you’re taking time to decide if this is truly the hill you want your reputation to die on. Representing Laura (and *very* publicly doubling down on supporting her blatant lies) will give you notoriety and attention, to be sure, but it is NOT the kind you should want. No one is laughing *with* you. Laura is doing bad things for herself, for you, or these men, for women at large. I mean, she certifiably lied about having CANCER. She is not a good person. She is not worth throwing away your reputation for. She is not worth lying for. She needs help and you need to drop her as a client. This has gone too far.

  29. Paul

    For the record I don’t think you should drop her as a client, especially if you can help her. I think Lexi stumbled across something maybe you didn’t, yet or was privy to a conversation you hadn’t had. But she obviously needs to be represented. The question for me is to what end. If no middle ground can be reached, like my previous question to solicited then, what are realistic next steps. Imo I don’t think this is really about money. I think Clayton wants a judgement or the ability to say “I told you I did nothing wrong” And I think Laura probably wants the same. So if you apply some logic, weigh the numbers, like you do, is there not a compromise there.
    Example, Laura says I really taught I was pregnant, but the evidence seems to suggest that maybe I wasn’t, when I taught, I could and should of handled it better, for that I apologise and am willing to do some reflection & if necessary some treatment. I apologise to judge xyz etc & Clayton.
    Clayton says, I crossed the line with you the night we met, it was very unprofessional and the way I treated you in the following days was wrong. My videos were unclassy & I definitely could have done better. We were/ are both still very young and should move on from this. We both drop protection orders, we both don’t seek fees, we both either or not obtain the right to speak publicly on this matter without fear of any lawsuits. The agreement can be sealed for 10 year or whatever and everyone moves on. If other stipulations are required in private and are agreed to speak on publicly then so be it. If I was weighing this, despite the egos involved I would be saying, it’s either this or spin the dice at trial. It could be a lot worse. Everyone gets a little of what they want, from weighing, I’d say 4/7 Clayton 3/7 Laura. Is that even in the Realm of possibility David. Again thank you for your imput, time & willingness to engage. God Bless????

  30. Buddy

    David, better make sure you get your malpractice insurance in order. Your client will certainly be attempting to sue you and report you, as she has done with many of her lawyers in the past. If it were me, I’d drop her and move on

  31. PP

    David, why are you responding to some questions but none about Planned Parenthood denying that the ultrasound came from them? You said you’d address that days ago.

  32. Nathan

    How about you take this down now, because you promised to take down anything that Mike wants you to?

      1. Arts n crafts

        Why have you continued to ignore the PP Ultrasound questions? They deny ever even seeing her or doing any ultrasounds… seems like her arts and crafts are unraveling

      2. Nathan

        Very lame excuse.
        No reasonable person would read the message from Mike to you and think that he doesn’t WANT this blog taken down.

      1. Justice

        Your obsession with “technicalities” and thinking you are smarter than everyone else by picking and choosing how things can be construed is childish and comical. You are obsessed with your own brain and thinking you know better than everyone else. If you claim to be so intelligent, you would reasonably infer that if someone asked something to be removed from Twitter they want it removed from your “blog” as well. But technically “hE DiDn’T ASk”. You are a complete joke of an attorney.

  33. Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide


  34. Bo

    Both you and your client like letting your mouth write checks that your butts can’t cash. You’re both about to get yours and we will all enjoy watching her get what she deserves.

  35. Paul

    David, I just want to reiterate that I fully supported laura 100% NO questions asked. I am waiting on the decision from the judge to fully make up my mind. The biggest thing that disturbs me is the fact that Laura with the support of at least 99% of people online allegedly lied to the judge in the OOP hearing. She said that only Clayton & her had those 2 photos. 1. The picture of her showing her stomach, in bra. 2. The Sonogram picture. I knew that not to be true because I had them at that time as well as everyone supporting her online. They were published on Reddit & in her Dropbox, which she gave us all access to. She didn’t need to lie. She either had enough for the order or she didn’t. In granting the order the judge said he was doing so because Clayton leaked those photos. I can’t get my head around that David, maybe you could help. Have a great weekend

  36. Sarah

    Just checking in to see if you’ve said anything about Planned Parenthood denying that the ultrasound came from them. You still haven’t, which proves in no uncertain terms to me, and to everyone else, that you do NOT, in fact, care about the truth. Not one bit.

  37. Dating contract

    lol, did your crazy-ass lying client reject your newest blog post? I am ~shocked~!!!!

  38. LegalBeagle07

    Dave, what is your opinion on your case for defamation at this juncture? Do you still believe that Laura will win $120million and own all of the houses and land of myriad podcasters?

  39. Mission Viejo

    Hi, David, remember when your client lied under oath about having an ultrasound at Planned Parenthood? Or is your brain too fried from your crippling alcohol addiction?

    1. David Gingras

      When the arguments drop to this level of mudslinging, it suggests the other side has nothing better to say. If you did, you would focus on that. Thank you for the lift.

  40. PP

    When a question has been avoided this thoroughly for this length of time, it suggests it doesn’t have an answer. If it did, you would just say it. Thank you for further proving your client is a liar.

  41. Sarah

    The longer you avoid answering where the ultrasound came from (since we know it wasn’t Planned Parenthood), the worse you make Laura look. Just say where she got it, it’s not hard…

Comments are closed.