T’was the Monday before Thanksgiving, and here I am seething. Well, not really. Mildly annoyed is more like it. It’s Monday. I’m always grumpy on Mondays.
But let’s get to the point – today is November 24, 2025, and the AZ Bar Guy still is exercising his right to remain silent (a right I don’t agree he has). In fact, let me be clear about something – I previously suggested I could sue the Bar Guy (Jim Lee) under a legal doctrine called Ex Parte Young. A friendly troll named “Bobby” has tried to challenge my position, because Bobby thinks a doctrine called “Younger abstention” would apply.
Since my thoughts are mostly focused on turkey this week, I don’t want to waste time debating Bobby…except to say this — among other problems with his analysis, Bobby is skipping over the fact that federal law allows for affirmative claims for relief when (as here) a government official illegally retaliates against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights:
A plaintiff may bring a Section 1983 claim alleging that public officials, acting in their official capacity, took action with the intent to retaliate against, obstruct, or chill the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. To bring a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must allege that (1) it engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) the defendant’s actions would “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity; and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct—i.e., that there was a nexus between the defendant’s actions and an intent to chill speech.
Anyway, this post is NOT about the separate question of whether I can/cannot sue Jim Lee. I will make that decision at the end of this week. Black Friday may take on a whole new meaning.
Until then, I wanted to start sharing my response to the Bar Guy’s multiple bullshit claims against me. I previously shared a video talking about one discrete issue (the Bar Guy’s bullshit allegation that I violated the Motion to Compel disclosure order by failing to give documents to Woodnick, and by “never informing attorney Woodnick that documents did not exist.”) If you haven’t seen that, here it is:
Today, I want to cover a totally different bullshit claim the Bar Guy is making — and this is something the JFC crazies raised VERY early on — i.e., the idea I violated a court order by releasing Dr. Deans’ report. The Bar Guy looked at the file and agreed 100% with JFC’s position on this (of course he did). But sorry, you’re both wrong. Here’s why…
Since a lot of people criticized me for only including excerpts from the Bar Guy’s report, here’s the entire section where he talks about this issue which forms overlapping complaints from Holli Wammack and Dr. Deans. I’ll embed this below, but I’m not sure how user-friendly that is, so here’s a link where you can grab the full PDF:
https://gingraslaw.com/BarBS-MataOrderViolation.pdf
MataOrderTo recap the facts – WAY back on my birthday (Sept. 14, 2023), Laura filed a motion asking Mata to seal the whole paternity proceeding:
In typical fashion, despite Laura asking for an expedited ruling, Mata waited more than a month before issuing a 1-word order denying her request:
NOTE – it’s weird to me that Mata apparently hates being a judge so much, she can’t be bothered to explain herself in rulings like this. Anyway, that’s a topic for another day.
Next, on January 17, 2024, Laura’s then-counsel (Cory Keith) filed a new motion asking for confidentiality:
For once, Woodnick responded and actually made a GOOD argument (albeit horribly written and with zero appropriate cites to legal authority).
Woodnick furiously objected to Laura’s request for a protective order by noting it would be ILLEGAL/Unconstitutional.
Specifically, Woodnick argued Mata could not issue an order preventing the parties from sharing information publicly, because that would constitute “an impermissible prior restraint on speech.” (He was actually partially wrong about that, but whatever). Woodnick also argued this new motion was BS because it asked for the same relief Laura requested in September, which Mata denied in October. He also argued it was “premature” because the court can’t order something to be confidential before the material existed. Woodnick also argued that it didn’t matter if Laura was “embarrassed”.
Now, as we know, on February 15, 2024 (but not filed until Feb. 21), Mata issued an order DENYING Laura’s Motion for Confidentiality/Protective Order. This was not a partial denial. Mata did not say: “I’m denying this in part, but also granting it in part.” NOPE. She just denied the whole thing, in its entirety. As always, with ZERO explanation (Jesus, Mata really hates her job):
So from September to February, Laura asked Mata to grant confidentiality TWICE, and Woodnick argued HELL NO – the court can’t seal anything, and it would be illegal for Mata to issue a prior restraint on speech (by telling the parties they were not allowed to share information before the information was actually known). Mata agreed with Woodnick, and thus TWICE Mata refused to allow ANYTHING to be sealed/confidential.
Sure seems like that ship had sailed, right? Well, not so fast…
Because as we know, there was a status conference held on February 21, 2024 (more than a month before I was hired). At that conference, Cory Keith raised the issue of confidentiality for a THIRD time by asking Mata to reconsider her TWO prior orders denying confidentially.
Of course, Mata DENIED that request, making this the THIRD time she ruled the same way on the same issue:
Now, as everyone knows, after denying Laura’s desperate pleas for confidentiality THREE TIMES IN A ROW, Mata dropped this bizarre little one-liner into the same order:
Apparently, according to people who have never practiced law, this one-line statement represents an “order” which apparently completely reversed Mata’s THREE prior orders in which she DENIED any/all aspects of Laura’s confidentiality requests. Now, keep in mind – Gregg R. Woodnick had JUST argued (successfully) that such an order would be ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PREMATURE, and otherwise improper for multiple reasons.
But I guess talking out of both sides of your mouth isn’t a problem for JFC.
What happened next was I appeared in the case in late March 2024, and I went BONKERS trying to catch up with the mess I’d stepped into. That task was made 1000% more difficult by the fact Attorney Woodnick refused to speak to me, after I confronted him for lying to the court (and to me).
Fast-forward to April 26, 2024. Woodnick filed a motion arguing Laura had committed “fraud” in the course of the case.
That motion included tons of “medical or other documentation” disclosed between the parties, including excerpts from Laura’s deposition discussing medial issues, an exhibit showing Laura’s medical records, and correspondence I sent to Woodnick, among other things. Woodnick filed this pleading and exhibits UNSEALED.
Later that same day, I filed a pleading responding to Woodnick’s motion:
Of course, I supported my motion with various exhibits, including the expert report from Dr. Deans: https://www.appeals2.az.gov/APL2NewDocs1/COA/1061/3954138.PDF
Based on those facts, the AZ Bar Guy has taken a position which, frankly, I find astonishing — he believes Mata’s 2/21 order DENYING Laura’s request for confidentiality actually included a requirement for ALL pleadings to be filed under seal if they contained “medical or other documentation” exchanged between the parties. Dr. Deans’ report kind of arguably qualifies as “other documentation“, so according to the AZ Bar Guy, I should have filed that report under seal, and my failure to do so warrants extreme punishment.
So why is the Bar Guy 100% wrong? Well, let’s consider these points:
1.) My “violation” occurred because I filed a pleading on April 26, 2024 which responded to Woodnick’s pleading filed earlier the same day. But Woodnick’s motion wasn’t filed under seal, and it clearly contained “medical or other documentation” exchanged between the parties. So why hasn’t Woodnick been charged? Maybe because he read Mata’s order the same way I did — as NOT required anything to be filed under seal.
2.) While Woodnick remains one of the worst lawyers I’ve ever met, he was right about one thing – Arizona has VERY strict rules for when a court can and cannot seal things. That is a function of two VERY important ideas: first, Arizona law has a STRONG general presumption that EVERYTHING that happens in court is a matter of public record. Second, as Woodnick noted, there’s a First Amendment legal doctrine called “prior restraint”. It’s complicated, but the basic idea is that courts are not allowed to stop people from speaking BEFORE they do so. That’s called a “prior restraint”:
Prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or expression before it occurs, such as requiring a permit before speaking or an injunction to stop publication. It is a form of censorship and is generally considered unconstitutional under the First Amendment, though the government can sometimes punish speech after it occurs. Examples include a law requiring government review of pamphlets before distribution, or a court order preventing a news outlet from publishing certain information.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
Based on these two heavily PRO-transparency concepts, Arizona has VERY strict rules regarding when/where/how a court can order things to be sealed. Happily, we have a specific rule that covers this:
Again, this stuff is VERY complicated, but the text of the rule is clear enough:
(c) Grounds to Seal or Redact; Written Findings Required.The court may order the court files and records, or any part thereof, to be sealed or redacted, provided the court enters written findings of fact and conclusions that the specific sealing or redaction is justified. The conclusions must include the following:
(1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;(2) the overriding interest supports sealing or redacting the record;(3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed or redacted;(4) the proposed sealing or redaction is narrowly tailored; and(5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
We conclude, therefore, that the court could not, in advance of publication, limit the right of petitioners to print the news and inform the public of that which had transpired in open court in the course of a judicial hearing. The order prohibiting publication and discussion in this case is violative of Article 2, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution and is void.
POLITE COMMENTS ONLY. RUDE/DICKHEAD STUFF WILL BE STRICKEN.
Does this go for you as well, David? When I showed concern for your mental health you called me “stupid” and “an idiot”
Hi there good sir,
Just wondering when you will address the fact that [redacted]
I keep waiting for you to do the right thing and you keep letting me down. When will you do the right thing, Mr. Gingras?
I’ve answered this 12 billion times. Not going to do it again.
You have said you answered it 12 billion times yet refuse to actually do so. I don’t know if you watched your “debate” with Rachel Juarez but obfuscation doesn’t work.
If you ever actually say “I really fucked up. I should do better.” The amount of support and sympathy you would have received would have been enormous, and yet, you continue to double down.
David,
You did bad things. MANY bad things. It’s not every other person in the world that has the issue. It’s you.
You DO realize that, since the charges haven’t been filed yet, you are giving the Bar Guy a front row seat to what your defense will be and are now giving him a giant opportunity to refine and revise based on what you keep writing here, right? Like if I had all these bar complaints pending, the LAST thing I would do is tell the guy about to charge me what my agenda and defense would be. But maybe that’s just me.
You can’t turn dirt into a diamond. But if it makes you feel better, I know something that you don’t know — everything I said in this post was already explained to the Bar Guy, in detail, months ago.
What you don’t realize is how the process works. Over the last 18 months, the Bar Guy has sent me every new complaint. He then asks for (demands) my response. Many non-lawyers don’t realize this, but if the bar asks you to respond, and you fail to do so, THAT can be grounds for punishment all by itself. So, a response is mandatory. Not responding is NOT an option.
In a small number of cases, the Bar Guy’s demands were so clearly unlawful, my only response to him was to cite a rule that say you CAN refuse to respond, but you must do so “openly”. So when that happened, I just sent the Bar Guy a response which cited that rule.
But for the vast majority of the complaints (including the thing related to Dr. Deans), I sent the Bar Guy LONG, DETAILED responses. I literally gave him everything he needed to understand the facts and the law. And it appear that at least SOME of those efforts were successful. To my knowledge, the Bar Guy has either dismissed (or simply chosen not to pursue) more than 50% of the JFC complaints.
The stuff he IS moving forward on is largely BS, like this issue of Mata preemptively ordering the parties to file Dr. Deans’ report under seal. That never happened. Did not happen. It could not have happened under these facts (for reasons ZADDY Woodnick told the court before I came along!) But sure, people like to rewrite history to fit their preferred outcome.
No one cares ding dong.
I love you, daddy mata
?
Do you understand the difference between public court filings – like the ones Mata denied sealing for confidentiality – and the release of private medical documentation/records, which were meant to be shared only between the two parties? Sharing Dr. Deans’ medical report (which had private medical information about YOUR client) was prohibited.
No one cares.
You realize that my receding hairline, (and I’ll give it to you was quite awful on Journalist Megan Fox’s Youtube channel) looks better than your legal arguments!
Two things:
1.) I have seen nothing Megan Fox has done in the last year, except for two things: first, I saw an AI song she did about a lawyer and a client falling in love. It was silly, but kind of fun.
2.) I saw the thumbnail for her Woodnick interview, and I was shocked by his hair. It looked like he made a deal with Satan – Woodnick would get his victory, but at the cost of his hair disappearing. Sad. And you’ll note I still have my hair (greying, but still there).
Mata gave the order in open court. We all watched it go down. Did you ever watch the hearing?
I don’t think I watched the hearing. Didn’t need to (and had 10,000 other more important things to do). While I agree a judge certainly CAN make an oral order, that just isn’t what normally matters. What matters is what the judge put in writing, and Mata’s written order was clear enough — she DENIED Laura’s confidentiality request THREE TIMES. And Laura always said she didn’t understand what Mata meant by the one-line thing about medical records not being shared “outside themselves”; she took that to mean if SHE (Laura) gave medical records to Clayton, Clayton could not share them with JFC, and vice versa. But Dr. Deans’ report was not a medical record, and there was simply no reason to seal it. It did not contain anything confidential, so what would have been the reason to seal it? And bear in mind – it was offered into evidence as a trial exhibit, by Woodnick…so if the 2/21 order required the report to be sealed, then Woodnick violated the same order in the same way I did.
Laura has been criminally indicted on 14 charges, you have been charged by The Bar on 6 counts. Will you and Laura be prison pen pals?
Just stop embarrassing yourself David. I can’t imagine your poor wife is happy about any of this. Stop drinking and rage blogging, go to rehab and move on.
Could Woodnick share the filing in an exhibit because it’s his expert report but you can’t share it because it’s not yours/LO report to share? Maybe that is what they mean by not share medical documents outside of themselves? Also did you share Dr Deans report on YouTube or your Blog?
I’m not in the law field so this might work differently then in my practice (physical therapy)…. But if you are planning on not practicing anymore anyways, can’t you just release your license and then you wouldn’t have to get charged with anything at all? I realize that there’s probably more to it than that as you want Justice for something you think is wrong, I was just curious if that’s an option. I know about physical therapist who got turned into the board for ethical things. He said in YouTube videos, and he ultimately decided he just didn’t want to practice anymore anyways, so he voluntarily released his license
I have seen that lawyers are able to ‘ retire/resign their bar license in lieu of discipline’
That could happen. Not something within my control.
I’m no legal scholar but, shouldn’t confidentiality in a paternity issue be considered something that’s best for the child? What if a paternity case is happening when the child is, say 13, 14, somewhere in there? Aside from paternity determination, doesn’t the court have a responsibility to protect the child? The motion was filed September 2023.
I just don’t understand how the court can allow a public/social media shit show without an ounce of consideration for the child?
Did the judge not consider this because protection of the child wasn’t a reason given?
Based on your argument wouldn’t that mean the bar prohibiting sharing client information due to client-attorney privilege is a first amendment violation?
Clearly it is not, because professions and licensing boards are able to set standards for behavior, with their being consequences to not meeting those standards. Why do you see this as so different than that?
It’s interesting how these two doctrines – *Ex Parte Young* and *Younger abstention* – get mixed up in discussions like this. I can see why Bobby would bring up *Younger*, but the First Amendment retaliation angle seems like a stronger point in this case, especially when you’re dealing with direct actions from a government official.
Pingback: Unpacking The Bar’s Bullshit; Part 3/6 – YOU Decide! – Gingras Law Office, PLLC