You are currently viewing LO v. CE – Into the Void

LO v. CE – Into the Void

You won’t believe this – NO REALLY, YOU WON’T – but I do NOT want to blog about Owens v. Echard anymore (at least not at this current phase). I have better things to do, and the case isn’t at a place where there’s much important new stuff to discuss. That will come later, probably, but not now.

On the other hand, with so much inaccurate information being spread every day by the JFC cult, this puts me in a difficult position. Do I ignore the BS (as I’ve tried to do since last month), or do I respond and TRY to set things straight?

I know the JFC cult hates me with a white-hot passion, but you can’t deny what recently happened with the Notice of Change of Judge – at least SOME of the less-extreme JFC fanatics stopped for a moment, looked at the facts, and realized: “Jesus — Gingras has a valid point we can’t refute.”

Don’t deny it. You DID.

So, even though it is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hard to change the minds of people who made up their minds months ago, and even though I have seriously enjoyed NOT talking about this case, there is still a glimmer of hope. There is still a small chance that SOME people might stop drinking Clayton’s Kool-Aid…even just for a minute…and they may finally realize the truth – that there are serious problems in the way this case has been handled, and those issues deserve public attention, concern, and perhaps corrective action.

OK, so I basically have two options:

1.) Allow the JFC cult’s one-sided (and often incorrect) narrative to be the only public commentary; or

2.) When important issues arise, offer my own comments to explain my views about the legal rules, procedures, etc.

I don’t love either option, but I think the harm that comes from Option #1 requires me to go with Option #2.

With that said, here’s the deal — earlier today, Judge Mata issued a one-line order denying all my post-trial motions (motion to vacate the judgment, motion for new trial, etc.)

Is that a big win for Clayton? Obviously JFC thinks so, but here’s why they are so, so wrong.

First, as everyone knows, on July 8, 2024, I filed a Notice of Change of Judge for Cause. That notice was based on Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Family Law Procedure which allows any party to ask for a new judge when grounds exist. In this case, we argued Judge Mata was biased, and that she had acted improperly for reasons explained in the notice.

I understand most people following this case are not lawyers, and that’s fine. But at the same time, if you are not currently licensed to practice law in Arizona, and if you do not have substantial experience practicing civil litigation in Arizona’s trial and appellate courts, you REALLY need to be careful about rushing to judgment regarding what you THINK the law says. Although I don’t follow this case closely on social media, when I do see comments (mostly forwarded by Laura and others), easily 90% of the JFC comments about the law are simply dead wrong.

I get that JFC doesn’t care about the truth. I also get that JFC is allowed to claim that I don’t know the law. That’s why we have courts — to settle these disputes.

But here’s the deal — JFC wants to fight this battle on social media, not in court, and JFC thinks the order today is a “win” for Clayton. That’s absolutely wrong as a matter of law.

First, the order today is VOID. That means it literally doesn’t exist, because Mata had no authority to issue this order while the Notice of Change of Judge remains unresolved (and NO — the notice has NOT been denied as of yet).

That conclusion is based, in part, on the text of Family Law Rule 6.1(a)(3) which explains the procedure once a Notice of Change of Judge is filed:

(3) On filing of the affidavit for cause, the named judge should proceed no further in the action except to make such temporary orders as are necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from occurring before the request is decided and the action transferred. However, if the named judge is the only judge in the county, that judge may also perform the functions of the presiding judge.

Got that? This shouldn’t be that hard to understand — if the judge assigned to your case is biased and unwilling to follow the law, you have a legal right to ask the presiding judge (Mata’s boss) to look at the situation and determine if you are entitled to a new judge. While that request is pending, the case is placed on hold. The rule says while the notice is pending, the “named judge” (Mata) should “proceed no further in the action”. The ONLY exception is to make temporary orders to prevent irreparable harm. Obviously, that exception doesn’t apply here, so once again, Mata has ignored the rules and done something she had no right to do.

So what happens next? What happens when a judge ignores the law and continues to make rulings in the case after a notice is filed?

Well, believe it or not, that DOES happen sometimes, and the AZ Courts have been clear — any action taken by the noticed judge after the notice is filed is VOID:

It is well settled that when an affidavit of bias and prejudice is timely filed, the judge has no discretion to do anything further in the case except to transfer the case to another division.

West v. Superior Court, 104 Ariz. 1, 2 (Ariz. 1968)

Since he had no jurisdiction to do other than transfer the preliminary injunction proceedings to another judge, the order granting the preliminary injunction was void.

Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court, 445 P.2d 555, 557 (App. 1968)

In Arizona, like most states, when a judge issues a “void” order, that order is literally treated as if it doesn’t exist. Based on this, today’s order denying our request for a new trial, etc., is void and thus has zero legal effect.

But there’s also a SECOND problem — today’s order is not signed. It is what we in AZ call an “unsigned minute entry order”. Why does that matter? It matters because in AZ (and again, virtually every court I’ve practiced in uses the same rule) — unsigned orders aren’t final. That makes them very different from a signed order.

Here’s why – you can only appeal FINAL orders from the court. Again, if you are not a lawyer, this may sound crazy, but while a case is pending, the judge may issue lots of different orders — orders granting/denying discovery, orders extending deadlines, orders setting hearing dates, orders dismissing parties or claims, orders denying a request to dismiss parties or claims. The list is basically endless.

The law, however, is crystal clear — with only a tiny handful of exceptions, most orders issued in the middle of a case do not qualify as final. Under the rules, to be considered FINAL, an order must terminate the entire case as to all claims, issues, and parties, and the order MUST be signed by the judge. If ANYTHING is left unresolved (or if the order isn’t signed), then any order issued by the court is not considered final.

OH, and to help make things even more confusing, the rules DO allow a judge to issue something called a “partial final order” or a “partial final judgment” (the post-trial ruling on June 17, 2024 WAS a partial final judgment), but to qualify as a partial final judgment/order, the decision is required to contain very specific language and findings.  Any order that doesn’t contain such language is deemed non-final, and thus non-appealable.

So what is the point of all this? Well, putting aside the fact that it’s otherwise void, the order issued today is NOT signed, nor does it meet the requirements of a partial final judgment. Therefore, even if the order wasn’t void (which it is), it would almost certainly NOT be appealable. That means the order is just kind of an odd, meaningless nullity. As a practical matter, it’s exactly like this order never existed at all.

But again, don’t take my word for it, here’s what the Arizona Court of Appeals said in a similar decision issued earlier this month:

We lack jurisdiction to consider Husband’s appeal from the order awarding attorney’s fees to Wife. The second amended notice of appeal lists the “[s]igned minute entry dated April 28, 2023.” There is no such signed order. The record includes an unsigned minute entry order dated April 28, 2023, filed May 1, 2023. This order does not state the fee award amount, nor does it comply with Rule 78(b). Thus, it is not a final, appealable order.

Husband also filed a separate notice of appeal when the superior court later awarded Wife $3,552 in fees and costs in a signed order with Rule 78(b) language. We dismissed Husband’s appeal from the attorney’s fees judgment, finding entry of a Rule 78(b) judgment was improper. See Kim v. Mansoori, 214 Ariz. 457, 460-61, 153 P.3d 1086, ¶¶ 9-10 (App. 2007). As a result, we dismiss the appeal from the order awarding attorney’s fees to Wife for lack of jurisdiction.

Constantine v. Constantine, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0379 FC, 2024 WL 3335879 (July 9, 2024).

OKAY, got all this straight folks? Let me just break it down as simply as I can:

  1. The order today is void, because it was issued by a judge who is subject to an unresolved Notice of Change of Judge For Cause. Because the order is void, it has no legal effect.
  2. The order is unsigned, and therefore non-final. Why does that matter? It matters for two reasons: First, because you can’t appeal non-final orders, and second, Laura’s time to appeal does not begin running until the court issues a FINAL, SIGNED order. That comes straight from Rule 9(e)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure which states: “(1) If a party timely and properly files with the superior court clerk any of the following motions, the time to file a notice of appeal or cross-appeal for all parties begins to run from the entry by the superior court clerk of a signed written order disposing of the last such remaining motion …..” That’s also the same issue discussed in the Constantine case mentioned above — you can’t appeal unsigned minute entry orders because they’re not final.
  3. Because the unsigned order is non-final, Laura’s time to appeal has not started running yet. Per Rule 9(e)(1), Laura has 30 days to appeal from the entry of a signed written order disposing of her post-trial motions. We don’t have a signed order (yet), so the clock hasn’t started ticking.
  4. Like virtually everything else in the law, there is a narrow exception that *MIGHT* permit (but not require) Laura to appeal the unsigned order immediately, even though today’s order is non-appealable on its face. This post is long enough already, but if you REALLY want to become an expert on obscure issues of appellate jurisdiction, read this: Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418 (Ariz. 1981) (finding premature notice of appeal from non-final order was OK, because “Dismissal of the present appeal would punish the appellant for being too diligent.”) I don’t think this exception applies here because there are too many other unresolved issues hanging out there such as the Notice of Change of Judge, plus the amount of fees.
  5. All else aside, the issue of whether we will get a new judge remains unresolved as of today. The Presiding Judge may still grant our notice, in which case the matter will be assigned to a new judge, or she may deny the notice (in which case we will immediately appeal).
  6. If Judge Fisk removes Mata from the case, this creates a real procedural mess — because it means the new judge technically won’t be able to consider the arguments raised in the post-trial motions to vacate, etc., since those motions have already been denied.  I assume that is exactly why Mata issued the decision today — purely to try and block Laura from having a new judge correct the damage caused by the June 17th ruling. But that plan is doomed to fail — Family Law Rule 85(b)(4) permits (indeed, requires) that “void” orders be set aside. So, let’s say in the next 30 days, Judge Fisk comes back and removes Mata from the case. We will then immediately bring a motion asking the new judge to vacate today’s order denying Laura’s post-trial motions, and that will open the door for the new judge to rule on those issues — again, just like today’s order never existed.
  7. Ultimately, even if Judge Fisk denies our request to disqualify Mata, that basically has zero impact on the case — we would simply appeal that issue (along with everything else), and I’m confident the Court of Appeals will not look kindly on what has happened here. Thus, the Court of Appeals could still send this back for a new trial, and that would involve an automatic change of judge as a matter of right under a different rule (Rule 6, not 6.1).

All this procedural nonsense aside, there WILL be a day when all these issues are resolved.

One way or another, Laura is entitled to her day in court, in front of a judge who is fair, unbiased, who cares about the rules, and who actually follows those rules.

That day hasn’t come yet, but it will.

P.S. I forgot to mention one important issue that JFC has been consistently wrong about – NO, LAURA DOES NOT HAVE TO POST A BOND TO APPEAL!

That is a common misconception, and it’s 10000% flat wrong. Has nothing to do with the issue of monetary vs. non-monetary relief. A bond is only required to stop post-judgment collection efforts…but that shouldn’t be an issue here.

If you see ANYONE claiming that Laura can’t appeal unless she posts a bond, please know this — that person has NO CLUE what they are talking about.

And NO — Laura cannot, as a matter of law, be declared vexatious….because AZ law (ARS § 12-3201) only allows pro se litigants to get that tag. People who are represented by counsel, like Laura, are excluded from the vexatious litigant statute.

P.P.S. (Friday) Comments are unhelpful bile, so turning them off.

This Post Has 53 Comments

  1. Rob

    With respect, I wish you’d keep to your multiple promises to stop commenting on the case. You never help, only hurt. And, after attempting to mislead us repeatedly, none of us believe you. Simply saying “they don’t care about truth” with no legitimate reasoning or evidence of Laura’s pregnancy — all you need to show is the PP sonogram from Los Angeles… or even security footage of her in the lobby — is you spinning and spinning.

    1. david

      agreed. and i thought gingras said he “doesn’t have time for reddit”? the lies are ongoing.

      1. David Gingras

        Someone else sent that to me. I’ve never looked at Reddit’s page(s) on this case. Not a fan of Reddit, other than rare visits to r/Justrolledintotheshop/

        1. Chronically Online

          Yet you subscribe and on one of the “cult member”’s pages?? Hmm seems like you might be spending more time with the “cult” than you say… or am I making a misstatement like your client?

    2. David Gingras

      If JFC agrees to stop commenting, I will INSTANTLY do the same.

      My remarks are ONLY offered to correct the narrative being pushed by the other side.

      1. Nathan

        But you believe that everyone commenting online about the case is a member of JFC. So you’ll be blogging as long as anyone, anywhere, says anything online about the case, right?

      2. Do better

        Why should anyone have to stop talking about it in any way? The picture on top of this blog says Free speech zone. Just like u writing this blog everyone is entitled to there thoughts, yet for some reason you want to stop everyone else from talking because it doesn’t fit Laura’s narrative. Laura’s narrative that YOU have said is unrealiable. She has twisted and changed her story so many times of course people don’t believe her. You shouldn’t either, but fine, you defend her its your right just as much as its the jfc crew right to defend clayton and the others.
        All I see now is how you’re a terrible lawyer, and PR guy because you are taking advantage of your client. You’re not a good person and if you believed in free speech you wouldn’t be trying to quiet the other side you would get Laura off SM. Tell her to move on. It’s over. Get help. See the errors.
        Hopefully, you too can see where your flaws are too and maybe not be so crazed because public opinion didn’t agree with you or your client.
        Ps. If you were really listening to the “jfc crew” you would have heard no one wants harm of bad things for Laura. They only want this to end, but that would mean Admiting the wrongs she had made.

      3. Lana

        So unless thousands upon thousands of people (because not one single would believed your client) don’t stop commenting – you will not either? The day Laura brings a case against you might be the first time we actually will cheer her on.

    3. Lady K

      Thank you Rob. Couldn’t have said it better myself. All I could do is roll my eyes. DG is over the top…….and not in a good way.

  2. Nathan

    So someone forgot to sign it?
    But if #1 is true, nothing else matters, right?

  3. jillian paris

    Honestly David, I stopped reading after a few paragraphs. As a professional writer, with a former career in PR, I can tell you that you are going about your writing and charm offensive for Laura all wrong. In writing, less is always more because the brain can only retain so many facts in one sitting. From a PR perspective the more a party digs their heels in and makes excuses, the more the public hates them. But, if they hold their hands up and ask for forgiveness then the public will forgive and you can get lots of media mileage out of it.

    Also, you’re right, I definitely thought the planned parenthood opening hours was a red flag but I also thought there could be a reasonable explanation for it i.e. that Mata knew PP Scottsdale were closed on Sunday and assumed it was the same in other places but mistakenly thought Deans had put it in her report. I’m guessing her boss has asked her the
    question, cause it’s certainly a valid one,but if your motion for a new judge is also denied, I’ll assume that her explanation was acceptable – or will you say her boss has also got the hots for Clayton or is seeking her daddy’s approval?

    1. Tannis

      majored in journalism and PR and agree with ALL of your points. i stopped reading after pargraph 3 lol

    2. David Gingras

      I agree 100% – I wish there was a way to condense this into a few simple points. I HATE these long posts.

      Sadly, law can be REALLY, REALLY complicated, so short summaries are virtually impossible.

      1. jillian paris

        You include a lot of unnecessary detail. Including that you were in Europe on a boat for your mother’s 80th birthday and internet was spotty, which you included in one of your motions springs to mind. At best, all you needed to say was you were on vacation and didn’t always have internet access but as long as you were within the time constraints, you didn’t need to say it at all.

  4. Nathan

    Laura was Pro Se at the beginning, but can you be declared as the vexacious litigant since you represent her?

  5. Twenty Week Ultrasound

    I started following this case in earnest once I learned that Laura presented a 20-week ultrasound to Clayton and the OOP Judge Doody, proclaiming it was her own.

    Now that we know she never had a 20-week ultrasound and that one she gave to Clayton and Judge Doody was, in fact, either stolen or fake, then yes, yes I absolutely do have a seething anger/distaste for Laura.

    I’m not a cult member but I do want to see her held accountable for her lies, and despite my numerous requests for you to answer, you continue to ignore the question:

    Where did Laura get the 20-week ultrasound (the one that appeared on the Halloween Costume) that she talked about so extensively during the OOP case?

  6. Bobby

    Every sentence of this reads: “Look Mommy, I’m a real lawyer now!”

    1. David Gingras

      Correct….and can you imagine if I asked my mom to come to a hearing where I was the judge, and then I ruled in favor of the party my mom liked best?

      1. Nathan

        And in that case, unless you ruled against the party your mom liked best, even if you didn’t know which party your mom liked best, you’d be guilty, right?

      2. Pat

        What evidence do you have that a) the judge’s dad was really there b) the judge specifically asked him to visit in person and c) likes Clayton better than Laura? “Well the judge didn’t deny it when I asked her” sounds an awful lot like putting a read receipt on your email and saying “having the babies if I don’t hear back tonight.” And you have hearsay, someone claiming they heard a man say “here for the circus” – like, I don’t know, maybe the MEDIA CIRCUS?

        Kindly also explain how her sister following him on Instagram would be a reflection of his views, surely your mom doesn’t share all of your opinions? Actually now that I think about it, I am curious what she thinks of this case. Make sure you read her the tight vagina email verbatim.

        1. David Gingras

          We have a photo of the dad in line at the court. I haven’t posted this out of respect (it was already published by JFC fans). As for your other questions, I’ll let my pleadings speak for themselves. Pretty much all your questions are addressed in filings on the record.

          1. Pam

            Her dad being there with no evidence that he influenced her ruling in any way is not grounds for anything. You have no evidence that they even discussed the issues in the case, let alone that he influenced her ruling. None. Even if he said he was there for the circus, that isn’t evidence of his views influencing his daughter. He could have meant anything by that – even the Clayton circus as opposed to the Laura circus, or the media circus. You’re shooting from the hip.

            And the PP closed on Sundays issue is harmless error. It wasn’t material to Mata’s ruling on the case.

            Also I’m still waiting for your apology for claiming I wasn’t a real lawyer. You asked for proof and I emailed it to you. Where’s your apology?

          2. David Gingras

            “You have no evidence that they even discussed the issues in the case”

            PAM — IT’S ON VIDEO.

            “And the PP closed on Sundays issue is harmless error.”

            Harmless error DOES NOT APPLY (as I explained about 50x over in my briefing).

            But do keep telling me what an awesome lawyer you are.

      3. Happy dance

        Respectfully , David, this is a matter of yours and Laura’s opinion, not fact. You can’t claim bias because she ruled against your client’s case and assume it’s because the defendant was on a TV show. Isn’t it extremely possible that the judge actually saw through your clients ever-changing story and timeline of events? Isn’t it possible that what you call “misstatements”, the judge sees as lies? It doesn’t mean it’s bias for her to disagree with Laura’s story and just because you want it to be doesn’t make it so.

        Moreover, regarding her father being there, you also said yourself it’s not illegal. How do you know if she even knew her dad would be there? You used the example that we couldn’t claim there was rain in Hawaii unless we were there when discussing Laura and Mike’s history, yet you listen to people on social media say what they “heard” her dad say. Were you there? Did you hear him say anything specific? Similar to the rain in Hawaii, you can’t know if you weren’t there. Her sister supposedly follows Clayton on social media according to you. How do you know she even has a relationship with her sister? All these things you are using to claim “bias” do not show bias. Laura got a fair trial. She gave her just as much time as Clayton to present her side. Disagreeing with her is not bias, it is also not “unfair”. You win some and you lose some. You lost this one. Take the “L” and stop blaming others for dragging it on when the only ones doing it at this point are you and your client.

        PS – as someone who also has a disability, I find it extremely offensive for you to accuse anyone of mocking your disability or disrespecting you when they are UNAWARE of your disability in the first place. It’s not up to the judge or anyone for that matter to stop and ask you if you have trouble hearing. It is YOUR disability and therefore it is YOUR responsibility to make those around you aware if you require accommodations. Please do not ever blame anyone again for your lack of responsibility in making your disability known if it’s necessary or a requirement to do your job properly. It’s truly offensive to those of us with disabilities and if you truly are hard of hearing, you should know better.

      4. straws

        how do you know that her dad was on any side whatsoever? there was only one overflow room, correct? he could have been there for laura? this seems like a big reach and a grasping at straws moment.

        1. David Gingras

          Please read the briefing submitted on this. Your questions are answered there.

      5. First Amendment

        That’s perfectly legal and you have not shown any proof that could be used in court that she demonstrated bias. What is your
        plan now? And can you PLEASE explain why, as someone who fights for first amendment rights, you continue to ask people who question Laura (anyone that asks an simple question is deemed a “cult member”) to stop commenting? That’s our right and, if you have such a strong case like you are cosplaying you do, you would easily be able to answer any question without throwing a temper tantrum or getting emotional like you do.

    2. LadyK

      Right? Totally off-kilter. Can’t believe this guy.

  7. Disbarment Looks Good on You!

    Thats a long way to say your lying client that lies still has not provided any clinical proof of pregnancy with twins.

  8. TD

    If she can’t be considered vexatious, what would we consider someone who has repeatedly used the courts to punish men for simply not wanting to date her? The multiple lawsuits were all riddled with lies and it’s simply that no one up to now stood up to her and exposed the lies for what they are. I recall you saying you’d dump her as a client if you knew she lied. Now we all know she lied, she lied about how many times she’s been pregnant, it’s 3 no 4, no 3, she’s lied about seeking care, she’s admitted she’s lied over and over again. And you want us to find you a pillar of the law, but why are you still representing her? There is no question she’s lied, and often and badly, yet… here you are. I’m not a big Clayton fan, truthfully, but she has lied and weaponized things that real woman have had to deal with, truly agonizing pain, and she has destroyed men’s lives for nothing and this should not be unpunished. So what do we do with a person who has abused every sort of public resources for malicious purposes?

  9. Roberta

    I would like to know what outcome you expect to achieve with an appeal. Even if the Court of Appeals hears this, what makes you think they would rule in favor of Laura when to date, no one who hears her evidence sides with her? It seems like it will just be additional costs for Laura.

  10. Gavid Dingras

    DANCE MONKEY!!!!! WE’RE ALL LAUGHING AT YOU

  11. No Candor Notice From Filed Affidavit?

    So many words for a motion that was probably already made but hasn’t hit the docket yet. Guess we’ll see. Will you dirty edit the blog to “Temporarily into the Void” if it turns out to be the case?

  12. Cornelius Juggalo

    FYI, It was Flavor-Aid they used at Jonestown….

  13. Alison Howel

    I concede that obviously you know more about law than I do as a non-lawyer and so for all I know these points you’re making may be 100% true in terms of law and procedure and what not. But good god, the way you talk down to anyone reading rubs me so wrong similar to the misogynistic tone of “look at me daddy!” Which was I found incredibly offensive despite thinking you have a point that the judge needs to answer to where she got the info about planned parenthood being closed on Sundays. The tone makes me not want to read an hear what you have to say.

    Have you considered that you may get further and people may be more open to what you say if you took a less condescending approach? I’m sure your response is you will never convince the JFC cult, but I promise you if you took a less abrasive approach there would at least be some people that are more open to the points you’re making from a legal stand point , even if they don’t ultimately believe Laura was pregnant.

    1. LadyK

      It’s like you want to try this with the public in your blog. (Is not going to change a thing)You put every day citizens with (their own take on the situation), down … using so MANY words doesn’t look good on you DG. What happened to the ” no more comments” promise? ????????

    2. LadyK

      Alison, I honestly tried to say ALL OF THIS…… I’LL just sit over here and applaud you out loud. ????????????

    3. David Gingras

      I sincerely do apologize if my tone is offensive. I’m not trying to belittle or condescend. I am only trying to ensure that people have accurate information about the law and rules of procedure. Yes the tone can be somewhat hostile at time, but that’s only in response to false information being spread intentionally by people seeking to profit from this mess.

      In that context, I think my comments are fair. But again, I never intend to demean anyone who is just asking questions in good faith. It’s the handful of bad faith trolls causing the tone to be less than cordial.

      1. fake babies

        can you clarify why you think that anyone who questions laura’s authenticity is not justified to do so?

        1. you defend free speech, aren’t we exercising our First Amendment rights by commenting/questioning your client who has admitted to perjury at least twice?

        2. she has never given a legit sonogram to the courts. the judge, PP witness and you all know that HCG test are unreliable, and since her medications (that she leaked HERSELF) can affect HCG levels, any logical person would question why she doesn’t have a single sonogram, when she is a high-risk patient.

        3. you continue to be triggered and have a short fuse when anyone questions you. eg: on twitter, when ANYONE shows you proof that what you are stating is incorrect, you block them (i was blocked for asking where the PP sonogram was ), which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you stand for?

        4. you continue to demean clayton, MM, and GG who are VICTIMS. if you really wanted to win the jury or public over, you would get better arguments. if i were you, i would listen to lawtube, because their hypothetical arguments are much stronger than your assertions that we should believe laura bc you say so.

        5. you continuing to call JFC a “cult” is hurtful to those who have gone through the trauma of actually being in a cult. it is clear you are running out of steam and just trying to pound your fist to get your point across, but have some decency.

      2. Tannis

        genuinely asking… how many cases do you work per year? you repeatedly state the same two ( the cheerleader one and the colin ferrel one) but are you new in this field or something?

  14. LadyK

    It’s like you want to try this with the public in your blog. (Is not going to change a thing)You put every day citizens with (their own take on the situation), down … using so MANY words doesn’t look good on you DG. What happened to the ” no more comments” promise? ????????

  15. Rachel

    Can you help me understand how you aren’t exploiting an individual you believe to be mentally unwell and admit to have lied who has persecutory delusions? Is the goal to bleed her family of money by continuing to litigate? Do you need the PR? You clearly believe in free speech for people you agree with alone. Are you worried her being prosecuted will make her family realize you’re just trying to exploit her?

  16. Roberta

    Could you please comment about Cory Keith’s Notice of Candor? Thank you!

    1. Mia

      He deliberately ignores and completely omits Cory Keith from Laura’s narrative. Notice how he is not even mentioned in his Motions, because if he was, David would need to confront the bullying that occurred and explain his efforts to stop Cory from filing the Notice of Candor, which acknowledged Laura LYING to the court.

  17. Look Daddy! I’m a real misogynist now!

    Can you please comment on the incredibly misogynistic line in your filing (you know what one I’m talking about)? Thats not going to do you any favors with any female judges or with the “JFC” crew made up of 90%+ women. It was vile and deserves an apology.

    1. David Gingras

      My comment had nothing to do with misogyny – it was about trying to explain how Laura was feeling when she learned the judge broke the law, had unethical ex parte communications with her dad about the case, and then broke the law again by conducting her own investigation into the facts.

      The judge’s conduct was outrageous, illegal, and unethical. But your focus is on ME, for the way I talked about it?

      Congrats – you’re in a cult.

  18. Michelle

    Would you be representing Laura IF she was charged criminally for perjury? We already know you don’t think she will be, but just entertain us for a second, would you? And pro bono?

    1. David Gingras

      While I took crim law/pro classes in law school and studied enough of this to pass two bar exams, I don’t practice criminal law, so no – if Laura was charged, I would not be the one defending her.

      I could certainly help, but I wouldn’t handle a case outside my field.

  19. Lonni

    So the LA sonogram is finally going to come out? It’s the only thing you need to guarantee a win!

  20. Angel of the Lord

    It seems that this is all a reach on technicalities only and clearly Laura was never pregnant.

    Why have you made this case so unnecessarily complicated?

    I am 5 1/2 months pregnant and to hear pregnancy and abortions and miscarriages thrown around like beanbags (you like that dumb comparion? That’s what most of your writing sounds like fyi) is wild.

    It doesn’t take an attorney in Arizona to realize the obvious. You and Laura need some good ole therapy.

    Wish you well and wish you would stay off the internet. I think you’re too old for it plus Laura’s Adobe skills are weak similar but different to your litigation skills.

    Your writing style reminds me of an overzealous student with lots to say but nothing that really matters.

    Your behavior in itself is strange…. overthetop let’s call it!!! I hope there’s some resolution in the near future so both Laura’s and your soul can begin to heal.

  21. Arthur

    Are you at all concerned that she will come after you at some point for malpractice or worse? Are you doing anything to protect yourself from future claims she may lodge against you?

  22. TYe

    Gingras, I say this with all sincerity, both you and your client are the most hilarious attention whores ever. Please don’t stop! LMAO.

  23. Laurie Spaulding

    Gingras? Stop, just stop. You are losing potential future clients based on this client who belongs in jail. STOP. JUDGE MATA did her job and your offensive motions won’t change that, just stop.

    Sincerely,
    A concerned woman

Comments are closed.