Blog

As far as I can tell, three types of people are reading this post:

1.) Members of the Clayton Echard Personality Cult;

2.) Normal folks who are interested in law/lawsuits/legal procedure (and maybe reality TV); and

3.) Judge Mata & Her Dad (allegedly, but hopefully not).

This post is ONLY for folks in Category #2. All others can stop reading now. These comments are not for you.

Now. let’s get into it — about 24 hours ago the court issued a ruling that was 99% favorable to Clayton (the judge did not vacate the order of protection, so that’s the only issue Clayton lost). Overall, and that one point aside, the post-trial decision gave Clayton pretty much every single thing he wanted….and arguably more.

Is this a victory for Clayton? Has justice been served? Will Laura end up in jail? Am I embarrassed Woodnick kicked my ass in court?

Fully understanding the answers to those questions begins with a few important points.

First, Clayton has won a battle, but the war is not even close to over.

Second, I’ve been down this road MANY times in the past, and I can tell you — it ain’t over until it’s over. Small victories (even huge ones) mean nothing if they are wrong and subject to reversal. If you were told you won the lottery and a few months later you were informed the ticket was fake and all the money was taken back, would you still feel like a winner?

Third, at the end of the day, the most important question that matters beyond all else is this — was the judge’s decision correct? If the answer is NO, Clayton’s victory is a hollow and temporary one. And at this point, that question remains wide open.

So how are Laura and I feeling? Where do we go from here? I’m going to share some thoughts on both the past and the future. But before we get to that, I have to remind everyone this is not my first rodeo. 100% of my legal practice is litigation, and I normally deal with cases a LOT bigger and more complicated than LO v. CE. That is NOT bragging or boasting. As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue.” If you want to understand the future, you need to consider the past and lessons learned from it.

For me, the most analogous past experience is my 5-year battle in Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com.  I mentioned this case before, but to summarize — this was a defamation case that started in federal court in 2009. Just like LO v. CE, the trial judge in Jones was exceptionally hostile to me, my client, and my legal arguments. He hated us, right from the start. The judge insulted me several pre-trial rulings, claiming my legal arguments were completely frivolous. He basically accused me of lying about the law. He ruled against me over and over and over again. Sound familiar? Basically, just like Judge Mata, the trial judge in Jones ruled in favor of the plaintiff 100% of the time.

Due to the legal issues involved, Jones was BIG news at the time. Every national network carried stories about the case. See, e.g.:

https://www.today.com/video/bengals-cheerleader-sues-gossip-site-44557379867 

The case was tried to a jury, twice. The first jury hung, and the second jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $338,000 in damages. When that happened, it was basically the exact same thing that happened this week in LO v. CE. The plaintiff celebrated and cried about finally getting “justice”. She held press conferences. Her lawyer (no longer licensed) posted a celebration video sitting in front of an American flag, bloviating about how great our justice system was (sadly, that video was later removed so I can’t share it).

Here’s a fun little interview that happened about 15 minutes after we got the jury’s verdict. Please note how happy/excited Clayton the plaintiff was. Look familiar?

But like I always say — it’s not over until it’s over. In Jones, as soon as we got the jury’s verdict, my client and I did not cry over our defeat. We did not weep after getting our asses kicked.

On the contrary – we hugged, high-fived, and then got the hell out of Kentucky. Believe it or not, after we lost we were OVERJOYED that we were done with a judge who was, sadly, corrupt, dishonest, or both. That judge was never going to do the right thing, and getting a jury verdict (even an adverse one) meant we could finally move the case out of that judge’s court and up to the Court of Appeals. Losing the second trial was honestly one of our best days….because it cleared the way to victory.

Once we got to the Court of Appeals, the victory was swift and decisive. The Court of Appeals smacked down every aspect of the trial judge’s decision, confirming that I was NOT misstating the law. The trial judge was simply an unethical activist who believed his personal views were more important that the rule of law. His bosses at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with every word I said, resulting in a complete reversal of the judgment against my client.

Here’s a video after we won the appeal. How sad do I look/sound here? And NOTE — the lawyer speaking here on behalf of the plaintiff is NOT the guy who later lost his license. This younger guy is a sub who took over once the main guy lost his license.

As explained in this CBS News article, Jones was was NOT the only time I litigated and won this same issue. In fact, I’d fought and won dozens of similar cases across the country:

“It opens the floodgates,” said Richie’s Phoenix-area lawyer, David Gingras, who has successfully argued dozens of similar cases across the country. “It would basically destroy the ability of websites like Facebook that allow users to post comments. … Once you strip away their immunity, once you make it conditional, you open the door to allow them to get sued.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-jones-ex-bengals-nfl-cheerleader-begins-defamation-lawsuit/

Despite what she told the news media, the plaintiff in Jones did NOT take her case to the U.S. Supreme Court (which was probably the part that I regret the most – it would have been a dream to argue that case before SCOTUS).

Alright, so what’s the point of all this? The answer should be obvious — just because Clayton got a lone judge to agree with his claims does NOT mean that ruling will withstand appeal. And here’s a serious side question for all you Woodnick Worshippers — has Gregg ever handled an appeal? I can’t find any evidence that he’s ever argued even a single appeal, much less that’s he’s ever prevailed in one. If you can point me to any prior appellate work he’s done, I’d love to see it.

Now, as for this week’s decision, here are my initial thoughts/comments:

• We need to hold a competition for the person who spots the most factual errors in this ruling (let’s not even include typos).
• Does anyone else find it ironic that the VERY FIRST finding in the ruling is completely wrong: “Laura Owens (“Petitioner”) filed a pro per Petition to Establish Paternity …. on May 20, 2023.” SERIOUSLY? Does that mean the judge has committed PERJURY? FRAUD!?! Should the judge go immediately to prison? NO, the judge simply misspoke and got the date wrong. In a case with so many moving parts, this is understandable, and contrary to what the insane clown JFC posse believes, PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES. This is not a crime, even in the Wild West State of Arizona.
• I personally can’t even count the number of factual errors in the ruling. There are just so many, it’s crazy.
• In terms of our ability to win on appeal, one of the finest aspects of this ruling is this nugget: “Here, the Court finds Petitioner provided false testimony as to the viability of the pregnancy in all three cases addressed in the procedural history.” WOW! Such a powerful statement! And the evidence received at trial to support that finding is………..wait for it…….keep waiting………keep waiting…..THAT’S RIGHT Absolutely freaking NOTHING!
• That single error virtually guarantees the ruling will not stand on appeal. And guess what that means? Yup – after the case is remanded for further proceedings, Judge Mata will be removed from the case. That comes straight from Family Law Rule 6(f) which provides for removal of the old judge after a case is remanded.
• Judge Mata has only been a judge for a few years, and so far, her track record is…..ummm…..not good. Here’s a recent case where a decision of hers was tossed out and remanded after she (wait for it) ignored a key procedural rule: https://casetext.com/case/in-re-spahr-1
• There is other anecdotal evidence to suggest Judge Mata has a history of doing things which would normally result in a mistrial in any normal civil context. For example, according to her reviews on TheRobingRoom.com (where she currently has a rating of TWO stars out of TEN), one former litigant claims the judge USED GOOGLE to research an aspect of the case dealing with snake behavior. Folks, I should not have to explain this, but a judge is NOT ALLOWED TO USE GOOGLE TO DECIDE MATERIAL FACTS IN A CASE. Obviously we have no way of knowing if this allegation is true (it could be a lie posted by a disgruntled litigant), but if the story is true……well, I am going to bite my tongue and just leave that out there.
• Greg Gillespie has been emailing me, suggesting he’s going to sue Laura. If you’re reading this Greg, allow me to remind you — BRO, YOU ALREADY SUED HER (with Master Woodnick representing you)….AND YOU LOST. YOU CAN’T SUE LAURA FOR A CLAIM THAT YOU ALREADY LOST.
• About 12 hours before Judge Mata’s ruling was issued, I sent an email to the court explaining that we believed there may be grounds to remove Judge Mata from the case “for cause”. Basically, there is a rule that allows a party to file a notice saying they have reason to believe a judge is either “biased” or “unfair”. In this instance, the concern was based on stories posted on social media that claimed Judge Mata’s father attended the trial, and afterwards he spoke to members of Clayton’s Cult. According to at least one person, the judge’s father made statements implying that Judge Mata shared information about the case with him, including a suggesting she was going to make adverse rulings BEFORE the trial began. Folks, if that story is true (and at the moment, we cannot confirm it either way), that would be one of the most outrageous acts of judicial misconduct imaginable. But because I am a reasonable person, I did not believe it was fair to file a Notice of Change of Judge (which would have gone to Judge Mata’s boss for decision) without first asking Judge Mata to explain whether the allegations were true.  Rather than doing so, Judge Mata’s clerk responded by saying the judge “would prefer a motion”, rather than simply answering my questions privately.  Based on that reply from the clerk, I began drafting the notice to remove Judge Mata, but (as expected) she issued her decision literally hours before the notice could be completed.
• If I wanted, and if I believed the facts and the law supported it, I could still file a notice asking Judge Mata’s boss (the presiding judge) to remove her from the case. Because this phase of the case is basically 99% done (the only thing left is for Mata to determine the amount of Clayton’s fees), I am not sure that’s going to be necessary. As noted above, assuming the Court of Appeals reverses and remands ANY aspect of this week’s ruling, we will automatically get a new judge. Thus, I’m not sure there’s a lot of value in raising this issue now.

OK, that’s a lot of words and maybe it’s not the part most people case about….so I will wrap up with a couple comments on the two things I bet most people want to know:

1.) How is Laura feeling, and

2.) Do I still believe her story?

As for Point 1, what can I say — Laura isn’t happy. She’s shocked. She honestly doesn’t understand how the court got this SO wrong. She feels betrayed by Judge Mata and by the court system as a whole.

I keep reminding her of a couple things. First, you have to accept our courts are not perfect. It is a proven fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted and sent to death row. That happens, and it’s not even a rare thing. I guess the only explanation I can offer is that courts are comprised of human beings, and humans are very, very imperfect creatures. Yes, there are dirty, corrupt, self-serving folks all around us. There are also many good people. At the end of the day, while this is cold comfort to be sure, Laura needs to accept that this ruling does not define her. She says the judge got this 100% wrong, and she intends to continue fighting this as long as it takes.

As for Point 2, yes — after all of this, I am still 100% on Laura’s side. I believe she was pregnant, and I believe the evidence shows she had a miscarriage that happened without her knowing it.

But even if I give Clayton all benefit of the doubt and accept his view of what happened, I am still 1000000% certain the court’s decision was still wrong. Laura tried to drop this case as soon as she reasonably could. Regardless of WHY she made that decision, the fact remains Clayton could have simply let the case get dismissed, and he would never have incurred a penny of fees. If Clayton believes Laura lied about being pregnant, he could have simply sued her in normal civil court for defamation, or whatever. But he chose not to do this, presumably because convincing a jury of 12 neutral people to rule against Laura is a lot harder than convincing one judge with a father who, apparently, is a fan of one side.

So, for now, no further comments from me about this. I’m on vacation with my family, and I intend to enjoy the rest of the trip. I took a break from my holiday to share these comments, but that’s it. Back to family time now.

Moving forward, I will not be posting anything further about this case….at least until the opening brief is filed in the Court of Appeals. My guess is that will happen sometime later this fall…..perhaps in the October/November time frame. NO, that doesn’t mean zero Tweets….if something comes up, I reserve the right to comment on it. But otherwise, just remember — this case is not over. You think you know the final outcome, but you don’t. All you have is ONE decision from ONE judge who appears to have made up her mind six months ago….and that same judge has recently been reversed by the Court of Appeals, so who knows….that may just happen again.

Until then….thanks for all the passionate interest in the case. I’m happy to answer individual questions via email, but NOT from JFC Cult members. All others are welcome to ask whatever you like.

Posted (with permission) from Deck 15, poolside, Norwegian Getaway, Rome, Italy, June 19, 2024.