Earlier this week, on May 22nd, an order was issued by Judge Mata that resolved numerous pending motions/issues. For the most part, the order pretty much kept with the same pattern we’ve seen in the case — the judge basically ruled in Clayton’s favor on everything.
One thing that was especially notable (at least to me) is the Court denied my request for a pre-trial hearing (which is known in the rules as a “scheduling conference”). This is notable because the rules do NOT allow the court to deny that type of request; the rules say if a party asks for this type of hearing, the judge MUST set one:
(a) Scheduling Conference. The court may on its own, and on request of a party must, hold a scheduling conference to formulate a plan for trial, including procedures for facilitating the admission of evidence and the filing of a pretrial statements. At least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each party, and any self-represented parties, must attend this conference.
Alright, so the rules say the judge MUST provide a hearing; I asked for a hearing, and the judge denied that request. Hmmm.
Clayton’s fans seem to think this is a GOOD sign for him. In fairness, if I was not a lawyer and if I had nothing better to do with my time than obsess over a Realtor™/former reality TV “celeb” and his quest for justice, then I guess I’d probably feel the same way.
But here’s the thing — this isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve had cases that followed nearly an identical pattern; i.e., the judge rules over and over and over in favor of the other side. And guess what? That does NOT mean the other side is guaranteed a win. Sorry guys, it just doesn’t. I can give you other examples, but this post is already going to be too long, so let’s just stick to LO v. CE for now.
My view is that Clayton has NOT won yet, and the judge’s recent ruling doesn’t change that view. Here’s why.
First, have you ever heard phrases like: “This is a court of law” or “We need to follow the rule of law“? We’ve all heard those terms, but unless you are a litigator, the exact meaning and importance of the terms may not be apparent.
I’m not going to turn this into a 100 page dissertation on the topic, so I’ll just give a basic summary. In the US legal system, most courts are “courts of law”. That means the judge is required to follow “the law” (duh), and used this way, “the law” means legal rules that are established by the legislative branch of government (which means Congress in federal cases, and state legislatures in state cases). Legal rules are usually found in state laws known as “statutes” or codes (in Arizona, we have the A.R.S. or Arizona Revised Statutes). Rules of court procedure also have the force of law, and there are also tons of other sources of law such as the Arizona Administrative Code, and various other state, county, and even city/local municipal rules and regulations. This is what we spend years learning as lawyers, and believe me — you could live 500 years and you’d never have enough time to master every area of law.
Taken together, these rules establish the body of “law” that governs our rights, duties, and remedies which can be enforced in a court of law. And FYI – the important thing to understand about courts of law is that judges are required to follow the law to-the-letter. Judges are not allowed to simply ignore laws they don’t like or don’t agree with. That’s the whole idea behind following the “rule of law”. This means laws are applied as-written, regardless of whether we agree with the law, and no matter how harsh the results may appear to be.
One clear example I like to use are the legal rules that limit your time to bring claims in court (often called “statute of limitations” or, very aptly, “SOL”). In many cases, these SOL time limits are SHORT — i.e., one year from the date a person is injured. If you are badly hurt by another person, and you sue them ONE DAY after the SOL’s expiration, the case WILL be thrown out and you will receive nothing. That will happen no matter how guilty the defendant is, and no matter how unfair the result may seem. That’s how the rule of law works.
But not all courts are courts of law. There is also a relatively ancient concept called a “court of equity“. Per Wikipedia (which is actually not a bad source for this):
Equity as a body of law
Equity is currently recognized as a distinct body of law, administered by various modern courts. The evolution of procedures within courts of equity has guided the application of equitable principles. Originating from the diverse rules of the early Courts of Chancery, today’s courts can exercise equitable jurisdiction while maintaining their inherent discretionary abilities to address new forms of injustice. Equity is not an independent body of law; rather, it is synonymous with corrective justice and complements common law to counterbalance its inflexible rules.
In this context, “equity” means “fairness”, and when you are dealing with a court of equity, the key thing to understand is that a judge has much more freedom and flexibility to do whatever they think is right, even if it’s not exactly within the bounds of the law. Case filed one day beyond the SOL? Nah, no biggie bro! We’ll just ignore that rule to help you out! EQUITY! WOOT WOOT!
OK, so why does this matter? Well, it matters because Owens v. Echard is technically proceeding in family court, not a normal civil court. And you know what’s coming next: Arizona’s family law courts are, for the most part, courts of equity, not law. See Atkinson v. Atkinson, 405 P.2d 919, 921 (Ariz.App. 1965) (explaining, “Divorce proceedings are conducted under the rules of the equity court since such are considered equity actions.”)
In most family law cases, applying rules of equity (rather than law) makes perfect sense. Divorce in a no-fault state like Arizona is a pretty mechanical process, but when you are dealing with things like child custody and spousal support, strict legal rules don’t always make sense. Fairness and flexibility become more important.
When a family court is asked to decide disputes over child custody, the court applies very flexible and fairness-based rules such as “what is in the best interests of the child?” That’s a highly subjective conclusion that doesn’t lend itself to black-or-white legal rules. Because child custody issues are so fact-specific and unique, a family court judge needs to have broad flexibility to consider ALL the relevant information to decide what’s best for each family.
So what does any of this have to do with Judge Mata’s rulings this week?
Well, this is just my personal opinion, but reading between the lines, I think the judge is taking a very “court of equity” type approach here. This means the judge probably wants to hear ALL information that bears on the issues, without excluding things for technical reasons….because that’s how most family court cases should be decided.
I can’t blame a family judge for, ya know, acting like a family judge. But for the same reasons, I also wouldn’t read too much into how this judge is handling the case. I’ve seen family court judges make decisions that are 100% different from what you initially thought they were going to do….because that’s what equity sometimes requires. Also, keep in mind — I have no choice but to raise certain arguments in this case, even if the judge doesn’t want to hear them. I have to do this because I can’t raise new arguments for the first time on appeal….so that means in order to protect Laura’s rights, I have to raise certain arguments NOW, just in case I need to use them later.
Having said all this, the biggest problem for Clayton is that this really isn’t a family law case. There is no baby, and there are no paternity issues left. It’s more accurate to say Clayton is litigating this like a civil defamation or abuse of process case (both of which are NOT matters of equity and are subject to all the strict rules that govern claims of law). That’s a BIG problem from Clayton, and I don’t think he sees it (in fairness, I’ve never even talked to the guy, so when I say ‘Clayton’, I really mean his legal team).
This is where I think Clayton is skating on very thin ice. His view seems to be that compliance with rules and procedures is optional (which the record clearly demonstrates). To me, it looks like Clayton doesn’t give a damn about following any rules and he doesn’t care what the law says…he just wants JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this was ONLY about matters of equity, maybe that approach would be OK. But the loosey-goosey concepts of equity don’t apply to legal claims such as a statutory request for sanctions. If Clayton wants the judge to toss every rule of law out the window just so he can crush Laura and claim his justice, I think he’s going to end up very disappointed.
In other words, if the judge rules in favor of Clayton and awards sanctions against Laura WITHOUT following the legal requirements (which DO still apply), this outcome will be appealed, and I’d say the odds of a quick and complete reversal are about 99%.
Because of this reality, I personally believe Judge Mata has NOT made up her mind in favor of Clayton. That’s a vlogger’s IANAL (I am not a lawyer) hot-take, but it’s not mine, and IAAL.
I think the judge is just following the “family court” playbook (she’s a family court judge, so that’s to be expected). When we finally have our day in court, I still think the judge is going to do the right thing — after hearing all the evidence, she will conclude Laura did nothing to warrant sanctions, and even if Clayton makes some sort of last-minute “renewed” argument in favor of sanctions (since he’s withdrawn the only motion for sanctions he ever filed), he still can’t recover sanctions because he didn’t follow the mandatory procedure for obtaining them. That’s it. Case over, Laura wins.
One final important thing — if Clayton wins at trial but then Laura wins on appeal, this will result in Judge Mata being removed from the case and the matter will be assigned to a new judge for all further proceedings. See Rule 6(f), Rules of Family Law Procedure.
See ya’ll on the 10th.
Where was Laura’s ultrasound performed?
Your girl LIED, About EVERYTHING. You know it. We all know it. Personally, not a Clayton fan or a fan of the Bachelor show. Just someone interested in justice.. Women like this who LIE about cancer, pregnancy, etc are DISGUSTING. It would be sad if she didn’t know better, but we know she does. Her antics set women back decades and it’s disgusting for her to act like she has had these pregnancy losses (she hasn’t) and that she had an ovary removed due to cancer (she didn’t.). There are REAL PEOPLE going thru these things & she makes a mockery of it. I hope she loses and loses any stupid appeal you try. Her VICTIMS deserve it.
Good afternoon.
I will admit everytime I read a blog/motion from you I get pretty convinced Laura will likely “win”. However I then read the response from Mr. WoodNick and then get convinced there is no way and Clayton will obviously “win”. I think it’s because I really don’t have a side or deep knowledge in law so I’m easy to convince! I also am not sure what “winning” looks like at this point….despite the results of the case I feel like both sides will lose in some way (reputation, money, emotional/mental health, ect…).
Anyways my question is: how on earth does either side present all this information! Is it assumed the judge deeply reads and sees all the evidence prior so you only need to refer to things and she’ll be aware? Also, as I lean towards Laura maybe winning over technicality here, will the judge be able to do/say anything herself regarding the evidence that proves Laura was dishonest about multiple things (while under oath)? Ie: Laura wins BUT……whatever the consequences might be.
Thank you ????
Can I be honest about something? I’ve been doing this for 20+ years, and over that time, I’ve written 100s and 100s of legal briefs.
TO THIS DAY, I still sometimes have the same reaction you just described. I will write a brief, then go back and read it, and I’ll think: “Damn, that was pretty good…no way the judge rules against us.”
I will then get the other side’s brief, and after reading it, I will something thing: “Shit, we’re screwed.”
The difference is that I NEVER, EVER take the other side’s argument at face value. I always read every case the other side cites, just to be sure the case says what they claim it says.
If you look at the recent briefing on my Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Clayton’s lawyer cited a case called Holgate v. Baldwin. He claimed this case supported his position that sanctions could still be awarded even if you failed to send a written notice (as the rule requires). If Clayton’s lawyer was right, that would be BAD for us….so if you just read his brief, but didn’t fact-check it, you might think “Clayton’s gonna win”.
But I DID fact-check Clayton’s brief, and guess what? Holgate v. Baldwin does NOT say what Clayton’s lawyer claimed it said. That is technically a violation of the ethical rules. Lawyers are not allowed to make a false statement of fact OR LAW to the judge. But this happens so often, it’s almost an accepted practice. Plus, I pointed that out in my reply brief….so it’s not like the judge has actually been misled.
Having said all this, I’m guessing the volume of paper has probably made the issues harder for the judge to understand, not easier…but that’s OK. When we get to trial, we’re going to have to talk about some of these issues….and even if the judge hasn’t had time to read everything, I will have it all memorized and I can tell her what brief she needs to look at in order to understand whatever issue we’re discussing.
As I keep saying, it’s a process….and it’s not over until it’s over.
Appreciate the response… Makes sense. I don’t envy being a judge….what a headache! Especially having multiple cases going on at once! I also think it would be difficult to really be non biased and also to remember all the rules!!
How many cases does a lawyer typically take at once? Just looking at all the work for this case, i don’t see how lawyers have time to do more than one AND still have time for family or fun! Yikes!
This paternity case was brought by your client under false pretenses – she was never pregnant. Moreover, the other witnesses will demonstrate to the court that she has a pattern of lying, deceiving, and manipulating men to coerce them into relationships, just as she did with Clayton. Furthermore, the Judge does not simply need Rule 26 to impose sanctions. In your last filing, you stated that exact fact. It’s too bad you didn’t withdraw as her previous SANE attorneys did. Laura will go scorched earth on you if she loses this, just as she does to everyone who disappoints her. You will find out soon enough.
Thanks for the comment and concerns…..but I think we’ll be just fine. Laura WAS pregnant, so I’m not really that concerned about that issue.
As for this line: “she has a pattern of lying, deceiving, and manipulating men to coerce them into relationships, just as she did with Clayton.”
What relationship, exactly, did Laura manipulate Clayton into having with her? They hooked up, and in the morning he told her to hit the bricks (classy). If Laura had any sort of “plan” here, it failed 100000%, right? So I mean honestly, I don’t see a compelling “plan” argument when your “plan” has zero effect on the intended target. All Clayton had to do was send one email saying he would take a test after the baby was born, and that would have been the end of that.
Guess you failed to read the emails she sent to him asking him to sign a “dating contract” in which he was required to date her for one/two weeks “with intention” and only then, would she agree to a paternity test.
That she admitted to doing under oath at the Oct. 25th OOP hearing
So legally, a plan has to be successful in order to count as a plan? How is that even relevant?
Good point. Trump’s plan to subvert the 2020 election with his fake elector scheme is not irrelevant just because it failed. He is facing dozens of felony criminal charges for his “plan.”
Ugh…you miss the point. I can plan to walk on water, but this isn’t much of a plan when the outcome is impossible. What if I claim Clayton has a plan to use this case to force Laura into marriage. Do you find that argument convincing? I wouldn’t.
Sure, by the reasonable person standard, coercion is not the way to a longterm healthy relationship. Particularly after she’s tried it three times before. Your client is not a reasonable person. She needs help.
If you have messages from Clayton to Laura saying he’ll drop the case if she signs a relationship contract, and further messages that he’ll go to the press and the court system if she doesn’t try harder to make their relationship work, I would find it very convincing.
I know that Laura’s plan has failed. There is plenty of evidence that she TRIED, so I don’t find that relevant. YMMV.
I’m fairly certain nobody wants to force her into a relationship lol. Maybe that be the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard. ????????????
Exactly my point. Labeling something “plan” does not mean you can just claim anything/everything is a “plan”.
Then explain the absurd dating contract everyone has seen? You’re saying that’s standard behavior?
Look- I get it. You HAVE to say she was pregnant whether or not you actually believe her. But if you REALLY believe her, I have some lake front property on Jupiter that I am selling so, HMU
Is there 100% proof of that? You have shown things that put that precentage pretty high, but every piece was given an alternative answer meaning it wasn’t 100% the case.
Dude, you live in lala land along with your client. All he had to do was send 1 email. Realllly? Have you met your client? Have you seen the emails she has sent him. You and her belong together because your gaslighting is baby reindeer to the max. You both actually need legit help. I don’t even know if your a lawyer helping a client anymore because you are so taken by lies you can’t see straight and the fact you blog and get into Twitter fights and stomp your foot like a tiny baby when you don’t get your baby shows me your not ethical in the least. There’s fighting for your client, but what your doing is more PR, which by the way is terrible.
Since you’ve came on, Laura looks worse then when she was doing her own bidding. At least then we knew it was her voice. Now smh, it seems like your pushing this terrible narrative and taking money from her even though its clear from all your rambles and gaslighting tactics you know she isn’t telling the truth. I mean hello, you told us she photoshops medical records TWICE now. But oh, its okay because she had to look good to the press, bloggers. What??? Do you not hear yourself. Oh, I guesss you don’t because you don’t think you, or Laura can do anything wrong.
BTW I don’t hate Laura, I only hope if its even possible that she can come out of this seeing that she is in the wrong, admit it, say she is
sorry, get help, and never do it again. But with someone like you as her lawyer it will never happen because you feed her because all you seem to want is a paycheck and an ego check.
Do better because sometimes these things are deeper than the law.
“the court may…”
There is a huge difference between MAY and MUST. Words are used with very specific intent. If it was a requirement, it would say MUST. Since it is an option, it says may. Meaning the judge has discretion, like with almost everything else in their courtroom.
Please re-read the rule (which I quoted in the post). The rule says the court MUST set a hearing when a party asks, which I did. There is no discretion on this…and yet, the judge did not do what the rule requires.
David, I think I can help with the ultrasound confusion. The ultrasound she testified about in the OOP hearing with Commissioner Doody is a different ultrasound than the one she admitted to altering in the deposition. It’s super confusing! So, let me try to break it down.
Ultrasound #1 is the one that Laura said in the depo that she used Adobe Acrobat to change it to from Planned Parenthood to SMIL and added her name to it as well because it was taken anonymously. It may have come from one of two Planned Parenthoods she has cited OR somewhere else because HIPPA releases were given to those PP providers and they don’t have any record of it.
Ultrasound #2 is an ultrasound Laura sent to media by email and also included in a Dropbox folder that she posted about on Reddit and offered access to anyone who wanted it. In the OOP hearing Laura testified to Doody that Clayton was the only person she sent this ultrasound to. I’m not clear on whether she actually sent it to Clayton or not, but it ended up being a central issue to the ruling. Laura claims that Clayton took the ultrasound of their “son” and edited it into a pregnant photo of her to make a meme that only he could have published. The meme, including the ultrasound is in the video of the hearing that is currently available online. It’s visually distinct because of the later stage of pregnancy (21 weeks).
It’s so much to wrap your head around, so I understand why you’re confused- hope this helps!
I think the best part of this entire word vomit essay was your dig at people who “don’t have better things to do with their time” considering your client’s escapades ???????????????? Injured myself ROFLing
Obviously the judge doesn’t agree with your interpretations of that case law, So are u saying the judge doesn’t know that case law , only your interpretation is right not fact. Honestly you should take a step back, stop pointing fingers at everyone else, and consider your position isn’t well taken because of your unethical behavior towards this case.. Your client started it with going to the media FIRST!!!!!! She brought this upon herself and the men will get Justice whether it’s in this case as a whole or holding laura criminally responsible for her actions…. SHE can’t extort men with fraudulent OOPs, fake pregnancies and medical fraud. We’re seeing more cases being indicted over women falsely accusing men, false police reports, Dv,SA, it’s awesome men are getting justice for being victims to women…
Sense you have been arrested before, you should start giving Laura tips about jail life.
Your parents must be so proud of your class and grace.
They are!!!
are your parents proud of your history with minors? sounds like you have control issues and that’s why you went after 16 y/o’s at 22! disgusting
So where did the ultrasound come from. I’ve asked over and over again. You promise an answer but never provide. Where? Planned parenthood mission viejo right?
Your lack of response is a response. Thank you!
WHERE DID THE ULTRASOUND COME FROM??
You seem to think everyone is interested in this case because of Clayton. Yes we want justice for Clayton, but also the 3 other men. We especially don’t want this to happen to another man again. She has a pattern!! At this point I personally don’t care who wins the case or not as the truth is out there! SHE LIED!!! See this link for many reasons people want justice! It’s not all about Clayton. Many people have had actual miscarriages and abortions or can’t get pregnant. Do you understand how everything she is lying about can touch people’s hearts? https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeForClayton/s/cDDYr0kfAr
Hi David, Your comment about “IF Laura injected HCG” and the possibility of her getting a 15 trillion value got me curious about that possibility. I googled “hcg trigger shot blood level” and found some studies that said after taking the shot, values were found anywhere between 90-276 mIU/ml. This can last 3-15 days. For people going through IVF, they are told not to trust a pregnancy test until about 2 weeks after the shot because before that, the test would show positive because of the HCG injection. Not necessarily true pregnancy. This applies to both urine and blood tests. I understand that the narrative your team is going with is that her number proves miscarriage but I find it strange that her numbers were also on par with the trigger shot findings.
What was Laura’s blood HCG level again? (On her real test. Not the photoshopped test.)
Good morning! I’m not sure if this is the best place to ask these questions but I can’t remember where I saw the original info. Was just sort of catching up and kept seeing every one talk about “misstatements”. Again, couldn’t remember the original source but I believe at some point you posted that your patient has made some misstatements and also I did recently see on Twitter that you admitted to some documents she altered. Just curious if you or she are going to elaborate on WHAT those misstatements are? Or Maybe she is required to clarify on 6/10 due to being under oath? I asked because I feel like there is still a lot of confusion on so many things and it might be because we don’t know what the misstatements are. For example, the timeline….. we’ve heard under oath her stating she was definitely pregnant and saw a provide confirming that on November. But we’ve also heard she miscarried in July. And also miscarried in September/October. And also she doesn’t know when, ECT. So confusing ????????
Good morning! I’m not sure if this is the best place to ask these questions but I can’t remember where I saw the original info. Was just sort of catching up and kept seeing every one talk about “misstatements”. Again, couldn’t remember the original source but I believe at some point you posted that your patient has made some misstatements and also I did recently see on Twitter that you admitted to some documents she altered. Just curious if you or she are going to elaborate on WHAT those misstatements are? Or Maybe she is required to clarify on 6/10 due to being under oath? I asked because I feel like there is still a lot of confusion on so many things and it might be because we don’t know what the misstatements are. For example, the timeline….. we’ve heard under oath her stating she was definitely pregnant and saw a provide confirming that on November. But we’ve also heard she miscarried in July. And also miscarried in September/October. And also she doesn’t know when, ECT. So confusing ????????
Where did the ultrasound come from?
Why do you continually ignore questions about the source of the ultrasound?
David, please use protection if she gives you a BJ as payment. She may have another set of twins! After claiming to have cancer I can only hope it comes true for her.
lmaooooo
So, are you trying to insinuate that Planned Parenthood Mission Viejo *lied* when they denied performing Laura’s ultrasound/seeing her as a patient? Because that is so, so gross. The last thing Planned Parenthood needs is more people spreading misinformation about them, their integrity, and their services. You seem to be a fairly progressive leaning person, I would hope that you’d know better. These kinds of things can have real consequences.
David, i don’t think you have followed all the evidence against Laura Owens or viewed all the fraudulent/threatening emails and documents Laura Owens has disseminated to podcast hosts. The evidence against Laura Owens is overwhelming. Either 1) Daddy Owens has paid you a large sum to throw things against the wall HOPING something will stick OR 2) you really are deluded.
Laura Owens is NOT a good person. Laura Owens uses Daddy’s money to seek revenge against any guy who rejects her. Both of you are pathetic. You remind me of the hypocritical Trump worshippers who defend Trump – no matter what he has done.
David, i don’t think you have followed all the evidence against Laura Owens or viewed all the fraudulent/threatening emails and documents Laura Owens has disseminated to podcast hosts. The evidence against Laura Owens is overwhelming. Either 1) Daddy Owens has paid you a large sum to throw things against the wall HOPING something will stick OR 2) you really are deluded.
Laura Owens is NOT a good person. Laura Owens uses Daddy’s money to seek revenge against any guy who rejects her. Both of you are pathetic. You remind me of the hypocritical Trump worshippers who defend Trump – no matter what he has done.