And you’re absolutely correct. And I have to tell you, you know, I have said before, this case kind of blows me away. I really had, I really didn’t have a complete picture of this until I went back and looked at all of these filings.
How insane the litigation has been. I knew how insane the conduct had been, right? I knew how crazy What was happening was, but there were so many motions that Laura filed this motion for communication, a contempt motion for not being willing to talk about the babies with her that, you know, so obviously constituted unreasonable litigation conduct that you know, under the Arizona statute about, you know, reasonable or unreasonable litigation conduct, these would so easily satisfy that standard and more.
Well, you don’t think that you don’t think that writing an email and file and firing up a dating contract to force someone to date you for two weeks to make sure that you’re not right for each other. You don’t think that’s normal.
Well, two weeks, maybe, Steve, but it was only one week, so I don’t know, you know?
Give
me, give me one week, just one week with me, and if it doesn’t work between us Then I’ll go have the abortion. It’s like, oh my
god. Yeah, and I hadn’t, you know, I had seen the sort of summary of the dating contract. It’s crazy. I mean, I saw the real thing. This is, I mean, astonishing. And, you know, It really, it really supports an argument.
And this has got to be another reason why Judge Mata made these detailed findings to make sure that if there was some type of procedural problem like the Rule 26 issue, there was more than enough backup to support her award under one of the alternate available theories. Because on appeal, if there are Two arguments under which the judge’s ruling can be upheld, and one of them fails, it doesn’t matter as long as the other one succeeds.
So if the judge had two different ways to support a finding, but one of the ways is ultimately wrong and it’s rejected, as long as there’s an alternative way to support the judge’s finding and uphold it, the court will do that. So that is no doubt another reason why she went into such detail about all of the alleged perjury, all of the unreasonable conduct.
It’s why she went through the entire case, because that’s not really you know, the most relevant to rule 26. It is, but it is more relevant to these other bases for sanctions. And so it gives the court the appellate court an opportunity to say, Oh, you know what? I actually think rule 26 wasn’t followed here or that I couldn’t uphold the rule 26 sanctions.
But oh, my gosh, look at this woman’s litigation conduct and the argument that, you know, we all should have just gone away in December. It doesn’t really work because there is no doubt that even though Clayton didn’t have a lawyer appear until that date, he was clearly getting legal advice. You can tell from the papers he had a lawyer.
They just hadn’t necessarily appeared in the action yet, and he’s entitled to pursue his affirmative relief. He’s entitled to that. Right? She doesn’t get to do this and engage in a bunch of unreasonable conduct and then just, then just give it up when she feels like giving it up.
So I think one of the things that’s being brought up and talked about with Jinger is the more we see his YouTube videos and the more we see about him and, and again, I don’t, I don’t know anything about family law.
You are a family law attorney yourself, is that he seems to be, and this is just an opinion of other people, but I want to get your opinion on this. He seems to be a little out of his league and people are saying he doesn’t really know family law like he thinks he does. And he’s just either maybe misinterpreting things or making something a bigger deal legally than it really is.
What are your thoughts on that and in terms of how he’s looking at certain things in the family law world that Is he misinterpreting things? Is he missing things? Is he making things a mountain out of a molehill? What are we talking about here with, with his, how he’s taking this on in the family law world?
It’s a really good question. And my take on that is that family law in Arizona, just like in California, has a A lot of unique what are called fee shifting provisions in it. In most law in the country, the United States has what’s called the American rule of attorney’s fees, which means everybody pays their own fees no matter who wins.
Now there are lots of exceptions to that. The most significant one is if you have a contract with someone and you sue them because of the contract and the contract says. If we have to sue each other, whoever wins gets their fees paid. But absent that, for things like defamation and just run of the mill claims Both parties pay their fees to litigate it, no matter who wins, unless there’s some special feature of the law that shifts the fees from one person to the other.
And what I think happened here is in civil litigation, non family litigation, Rule 11, which is, you know, the same as Family Law Rule 26, except for civil law, is one of those main fee shifting features. It’s one of the few. Ways to have the other side pay your fees in family law. It matters a lot less because there are all these other ways because you’re dealing with people and their families and individuals, not, you know, Google suing Samsung or Apple suing, you know, Microsoft, you know, there’s a lot more ways to shift fees to have the other side pay your fees.
for more benign behavior. So what I think is probably happening is he is not, either he’s realized that he’s in trouble in family law, in which case he’s probably rightly kind of ignoring it, or he doesn’t really fully appreciate that unlike in other areas of the law, family law doesn’t require much to make the other side pay some of your fees.
It’s way easier for that to happen in family law, just by being unreasonable. Whereas that’s not the case in civil litigation. So when people say that, when family law lawyers say that, I think what they’re trying to say is that basically he has put all this emphasis on the technical requirements of rule 26 that were not followed.
Because in civil litigation, if it wasn’t in family law, that would be really the only hope here for getting fees paid. There might be, you know, a small hope for a tiny amount of fees if she violated, you know, the court’s orders to turn over information and didn’t do it correctly. But other than that, that would be the only way for him to win these sanctions.
In family law, there’s about seven other ways. There’s these other statutes that say, oh, if you don’t act reasonably, oh, if you have more money than the other side. I mean, there’s all these ways to shift things that do not have all of the crazy procedural requirements of a Rule 11 or a Rule 26. So I think that’s what people are saying is he seems hung up on this, this one avenue and kind of pooh poohs the other, the other alternative basis for sanctions here because he doesn’t really fully appreciate that in family law, those other alternative bases for sanctions actually have a lot of teeth because it’s much easier to get your fees paid for in family law than in other arenas.
So I don’t know whether it’s that he doesn’t know that. or whether he does know that. And therefore, he’s just kind of shoved those arguments to the bottom of his brief. That’s really the best he could do anyway. So I don’t know which is the case, but it is certainly true that he has really ignored what Seem to be the better basis for fees than rule 26.
So his other big point that he made in his appeal that I could understand when I was reading it was this whole notion about Planned Parenthood and Laura admitting into evidence for the first time the day of the trial that no, I didn’t go to Mission Viejo I went to Planned Parenthood in LA And then Gingras saying the only way that Judge Mata could have found out that Planned Parenthood was closed in LA on a Sunday, the day that Laura claimed to go, was finding it through searching online or looking at the JFC website or something like that.
And to me, and this is to the layperson, it seems like that is something where he’s making a mountain out of a molehill. To me on the outside, the story is more that, Laura lied in pre trial hearings and depos by never mentioning Planned Parenthood on July 2nd in L. A., and bringing it up for the first time during trial.
Whereas, Gingras then takes the focus on, well, let’s just slide past that little fib by Laura and focus on, wait, how did Mata get that info? What’s ha so, So what is happening here with that argument? Is that what you’re kind of seeing him making that with that, with that whole point about Planned Parenthood?
Planned Parenthood? Yes,
I absolutely agree. This is. Look, I understand why he’s making the argument, because it doesn’t look great. It’s total speculation that she must have learned it off the internet. Maybe Judge Mata has been to Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles. Now, that doesn’t mean she should be relying on her own knowledge if evidence wasn’t admitted.
But this was not a critical fact in the case. This was not like, you know, her relying on her own knowledge of gestational age to conclude that Laura wasn’t pregnant, you know. It’s a very small point. I understand why he’s emphasizing it, because it doesn’t look great that she seems to have found a fact that wasn’t introduced at trial.
But what I don’t understand, personally, is In the context of what’s going on in the broader world, i. e. the perjury investigation, the first thing I thought when I read it is, oh my god, he has just handed Rachel Mitchell her perjury prosecution. Because he has just highlighted, Laura lied about this at least once under oath, I think three or four times.
You know, but at least once that I saw pop up right up. You know, she lied about it at least once at deposition. And, you know, again, Under normal circumstances, family law in a perjury in a family law case, perjury in any case is like old news, right? That wouldn’t be a problem. Under normal circumstances, nobody would say, Oh my God, you’re going to subject your client to perjury prosecution because you’ve just admitted that she changed her testimony.
But they know that there’s a prosecutor investigating her for perjury. So I don’t know why that decision was made. Ask her consultation with his client, because it would seem to me that doesn’t feel like it’s going to be a winner on appeal. It feels like more of a Hail Mary, throwing it in because it doesn’t look great, but it’s a very kind of tangential point to the overall basis for sanctions.
As the trial court judge who determined that Judge Mata shouldn’t be disqualified found, she said, Eh, who cares? Right? And I think that’s probably what an appellate court will say, too. But, in a different case, I can understand including it, because it kind of gives a specter of like, Oh, gee, what happened here?
But in a circumstance where he knows his client is being investigated for perjury, he has just created an appellate brief highlighting her perjury. And I didn’t really get that.
I don’t think anybody does. And I, and I just, I look at it and. I’m just shocked at how much he talks about that particular point of the case, and her dad being in the overflow room, and her dad making comments post show, and him saying, look daddy, I’m a judge now, and not only, he has such, I mean, we already know that Gingras has such a hard on for Dave Neal, but he really has such a hard on For Judge Mata, and he literally doesn’t think she should be a judge in the state of Arizona like he over this Like he’s saying that she shouldn’t be a judge not like hey, she overlooked this I want to point this out because we could possibly win an appeal on this He’s like this woman shouldn’t be sitting behind a bench and I’m like this guy is He is just coming full guns blazing because that’s just seems to be wrong of him to say it’s one thing to dispute like hey She might have missed something.
I want to point it out Versus saying she shouldn’t be behind a bench, which is what he’s been saying online,
right? And he and he kind of you know, every now and then casually throws out, you know Oh, I’m not you know, this isn’t personal about judge Mata. Yes, it is. It is very personal you know and It’s, I don’t, that’s another thing, I, look, I think, I think personally, this is speculation.
He’s trying to position himself. As the guy who will blow, who will burn down the house for his clients, right? He’ll burn down the courthouse. He’ll burn down every other lawyer’s office. Not literally, but figuratively, right? He’s trying to put himself out there as I’ll take on the whole system for you.
Right? Because. If, look, judges are humans. There are bad apple judges out there, okay? But, I think it’s outrageous to suggest that this case is an example of, you know, a bad apple judge. Even if it turns out she made all these mistakes, it is very understandable why they were made, right? small procedural errors, an outrageous litigant, you know, a very difficult and unusual situation.
You know, this is nowhere close to the kind of like, how could a judge behave this way? You know, situation that would merit a lawyer coming out and in good faith saying, You know what? I’ve been a lawyer for 20 years. I’ve had good decisions, bad decisions, but this one is just, I’m going to call it out as what it is, which is, you know, an embarrassment to the justice system.
Like that’s outrageous. And it’s just not true.
Yeah.
So, yeah, go ahead. No, that’s why I’m saying, I think, you know, it, he’s got, this has got to be a salesman thing for him. And maybe at work, maybe in connection with Laura, because it’s just not. Connected to reality.
So with the appellate court, we know that there are three judges that are going to hear this case that have, they go in blind, right?
They know nothing until they see the paperwork filed by Jingres is 75 page appeal. And then obviously Woodnick’s response or Woodnick’s team’s response. Wouldn’t it is not an appeal. Doesn’t do appeals. The guy, I guess his name is Marcus. He’s going to be the one that’s going to be filing the appeal from the Woodnick firm.
Anyway, three judges are on this. I talked to you about this last night and I just kind of want to get your feel on this because I know this has been brought up because this is a case dealing with paternity and a woman and pregnancy and, you know, miscarry and stuff like that. Does it help or hurt Laura if these three judges looking at this case happen to be men?
If two of the three happen to be men? That the thought is maybe if they’re men, that’s going to help Laura’s case because they haven’t been through pregnancy. If it’s all women, especially if they’re all mothers, it would hurt Laura’s case. They could relate more. I know it’s hard to predict, but what are your thoughts on just does Laura have a better chance if men are the three judges or two of the three are men.
And the other thing I want legally is. When it’s a three judge panel like this, they all have to come to one decision or is it they all have their own thoughts? How does it work when they when they finally release a decision about this? Is it just okay? We all got together and we decided this is what it is.
How does it work with three judges?
Right. So with three judges, it’s, you know, if you ever want to know exactly how it works, just watch hot bench. Yeah. I watch your show. You
guys don’t all agree on everything. Right? No,
we don’t. And that’s the same with the court of appeal. I mean, obviously they do more than discuss it for 20 minutes, but no, the three of them, the three appellate justices discuss it depending on which court it is.
They may exchange, you know, memos with each other. Their clerks would write them and they will decide basically how each of them feel about it. And basically, majority rules. Now, occasionally, there could be a situation where they all have a slightly different opinion, and you could get a mess, but that’s pretty rare in a case that is not very complex.
So, it’s basically majority rules, and if all three don’t agree, someone dissents and says, I don’t agree. And that doesn’t change the efficacy of the opinion. Your question, we talked about this last night about, about the gender of the judges. Look, appellate court judges tend to be quite good. I wouldn’t say that it will be better for Laura if she has men, I think, because I, I really do have faith, you know, in, in most of the, the judiciary, especially on the appellate courts, but really everywhere that they can understand these issues.
You know, they can read the briefing, read the record, because they won’t only have the briefs, they’ll have the entire record of the case below if they want it. What I would say instead is that it will help Clayton if among those appellate justices are women who have been pregnant or women or men who have been closely involved with a pregnancy, right?
My husband, You know, would, would have the same reaction to, what do you mean no ultrasound? Do you know how many ultrasounds I had to sit through for my four children? You know, so I would say that it will help him because I think the visceral reaction to a woman who’s had children, who’s been pregnant, who, or, or a woman who knows the process very well, you know, is.
This is literally outrageous that she doesn’t have a sonogram, but I don’t think it’s necessarily bad for her. I mean, the fact that she claims to have gone to a Planned Parenthood but can’t produce a record of it, lied under oath about it. Lied under oath when ordered by the court to tell him where he went, where she went.
You know, and then changed her testimony on the eve of trial or not on the eve of trial at trial. I think that kind of speaks for itself, but I do think it will really be beneficial for Clayton. If at least one of the justices is a woman who’s had children or a man or a woman who has been closely involved with a partner that had children or through a pregnancy process, Because that will really drive home the point You kind of It doesn’t have to be, you know, it doesn’t have to be analytical anymore.
It’s, it’s just kind of intrinsic. It’s so obvious that you don’t need to put any thought into like, Oh, well, there’s this HCG test and that HCG test. If you’ve been through this process, You just know, you know, all of this stuff and you just know things like, you don’t know if it’s boy and girl twins at a seven week ultrasound.
Everybody who’s waited to find out the gender of a child knows they won’t tell you it’s boy girl at seven weeks, you know? So, that’s kind of what I would say. I think it would be very nice for him if they had one justice on that panel who has been through this and who really understands it. It
just seems like common sense looking at certain things of this case.
And you mentioned the HCG thing and you’ve had three children yourself. And you even said to me like, HCG levels is something that I never even knew during my three pregnancies. It’s not even something focused on, right? Right?
I mean, I’m sure that my OBGYN probably, I mean, I know I had blood drawn, and I know that my OBGYN looked at HCG levels, I’m sure.
And I was fortunate to never have an experience where I lost a pregnancy that I know of. So I never had to kind of, you know, be confronted with watching the HCG levels very carefully. But as Laura claimed, neither did she until the very end. And so, yeah, I, I literally don’t ever remember through three pregnancies, having a doctor tell me, these are your HCG levels, Ms.
Juarez. Like, no, he would show the ultrasound. He’d be like, Oh, good news. We’ve got a heartbeat. Oh, look at the measurements. You know, up, measuring eight weeks, that’s where you should be. And in fact, with one of my pregnancies, I had, I had kind of misdated it. I, I was kind of wrong on what I thought the date of conception was.
And it was, the, the fetus was measuring a little bit behind at that point. We still didn’t talk about HCG levels. We talked about, oh, you know, the, it’s, it’s not looking as big as it should. We got to watch this. I still didn’t know what my HCG levels were. So, it’s, it’s a bizarre thing for anybody who’s been through a pregnancy to be focused on, this is all that matters, is what are my HCG levels.
And the only reasonable explanation for her doing that is because, absent pulling something off the internet, You can’t, like, eat a raspberry and make it look like you have a baby on an ultrasound. You know?
Yeah.
But there are ways to artificially inflate HCG levels.
Yeah.
So that’s the only reason that should be the focus.
Yeah. I mean, and it’s, it’s just funny because we never hear when Gingras does his videos or, there’s never any talk about that. He’s the guy that talks about, you know, he hates that Dave Neal doesn’t tell both sides of the story. It’s just like Actually Jingerous, Dave Neal does tell Laura’s side, he does say this is what she is claiming, here is the dispute of what she is claiming and here’s proof.
That’s why this is so funny to me that he hates Dave so much and says Dave just spews lies and he’s no different than Alex Jones. Which is just an absurd comparison. It’s like, no, he’s basically saying you’re not, you’re not letting Laura tell her side. First off, she would never come on Dave or my podcast because we would destroy her.
And I just, I don’t really understand, excuse me, that part of it, but all right. I wanted to end with this. Jeez, frog in my throat. Let’s just say she loses the appeal and. fails to pay. Can she be held in contempt of court of that? Because people don’t seem to think that she’s ever going to fork over 150, 000 if she loses this appeal.
So, if she loses the appeal and fails to pay, there will be a number of avenues available to Clayton to execute on the judgment, but it is very hard to execute on a judgment, particularly for somebody who is not receiving regular paycheck from an employer, so that there are methods to garnish wages, and it is very difficult and very expensive.
To collect so when you have an amount of money and somebody who doesn’t have an obvious source to get it from and no other kind of method of Coercion, you know, it’s not like a case where you know You have other things that you can hold over them or something like that There’s it’s very hard to collect and for an amount of money like 150 thousand dollars You can easily Reach something close to that amount trying to collect it So It’s not wrong to say that this will be very difficult for him to collect.
And just as a final note, I think I mentioned this when you and I talked yesterday, That’s another kind of interesting twist to the prosecution mingle, because there are additional methods for collection and additional coercion techniques, not improper coercion, but valid coercion, right? There are additional methods available for restitution to Clayton if a criminal case is pursued.
It doesn’t mean anybody will ever see any money, but there are other tools available and other. procedures available. If if a prosecution is initiated and obviously if she’s convicted and depending on what she’s convicted for, that might kind of add tools into the tool belt to to make sure that he receives, you know, victims compensation.
But in addition, that could be made part of a plea deal. You know, restitution where there is more of an incentive to comply with the deal So that kind of adds another sort of interesting Aspect to will there won’t they prosecute her
now final thing if she wins the appeal What would be the next steps another trial or jingers?
I think is saying we don’t want another trial if we win We want this reversed, and Clayton pays her fees. Is that even his determination to make, or that will be made by the appellate judges? But if she does win appeal, what would likely be the next steps of this?
Right, so if she wins the appeal, my guess is, although again, I don’t practice in Arizona, there’s another level of appeal that could be taken.
Right. They could appeal the appellate decision to the Supreme Court, but that it’s, they don’t necessarily have a right of appeal, but, but that’s an option if she just wins, it’ll be up to the appellate court, whether or not he pays her fees in California, that would not happen, but I, I couldn’t tell you in Arizona, whether that’s a good argument or not, because it wasn’t extensively briefed yet.
But you wait now. I just lost my train of thought. You got to remind me what your question was. There was another question
seems to be saying that we don’t want another trial. If that’s right, we want it. We want this decision that modem made reversed and Clayton pays her fees, right? That’s what he’s saying.
And
that is by far the most likely outcome because the vast majority of arguments he’s made if adopted would be in. Lead to just an outright reversal of the decision, not a remand for reconsideration. There are a couple ways the Appellate Court could go if they adopt some but not all of his arguments that might send it back either for a new trial or I think for clarification from Judge Mata.
Specifically, I see the potential here that the Appellate Court could go back and ask her to more fully explain the breakdown of the fees being awarded. And under what basis, but I think the more likely result is if one of his arguments prevails. Most of them would require it just to be reversed as opposed to being sent down for a new trial.
Gotcha. So after reading his appellate brief, and obviously we haven’t seen Woodnick’s firm’s response to this, but you have read, like you said, the other briefings, you probably have an idea of how they’re going to respond to these, to Gingras’s. Appellate brief, right? I mean, do you what is your overall take?
Ultimately, do you think this is going to be reversed?
Overall, I don’t think so. I would certainly not say 100 percent no chance in hell, right? Because nobody says that but I’m also just not even
does
I know nobody nobody real says that right? But You know, I’m also just also not a hundred percent confident.
I think, you know, I’m a much more measured, you know, dispassionate analyst. And I don’t, after reading his brief and anticipating what, would Nick would argue from seeing his prior briefing. I think it’s more likely to be upheld on appeal. In other words, she would lose the appeal than not. But, you know, I’m here to be honest and give you my dispassionate analysis, regardless of what I feel.
There’s a better chance of success than I would have thought before reading the whole brief. So, we’ll see. I think, I think the takeaway is, if Laura prevails on appeal, it is not going to be because any appellate court says She was pregnant, or this judge was terrible, and you know, she favored Clayton because he was a bachelor, and poor Laura is a victim.
That is not happening here. What would happen is a determination that a very technical rule Has not been complied with and therefore the award cannot stand. It is not going to be because an appellate court looks at this and says that was the unfair decision. And I don’t want to, you know, downplay the importance of procedural rules or technical rules.
They can be very important. But if she wins, it’s going to be because a hyper technical rule was violated.
And I think people, we need to be very clear about that because we know that Gingras will go on a victory lap forever and ever, and probably make it seem like, see, we told you Clayton had nothing all along, and this case never should have been brought to a trial.
I mean, we know he’s going to say that. He’s not going to focus on, hey, you understand people, this is just a technical thing. He’s never going to say that. He’s going to say, look, we won. I told you we were going to win because that’s the way he does his business, you know, but we have to be clear about this doesn’t mean that she was.
She was vindicated,
right? And I think there’s been a lot of discussion about just wait until Laura’s vindicated. Wait until, you know, it turns out we were right all along and I don’t see any meaningful chance of that happening. If you know, and if she does win, you know, I’ll be back and I will explain, you know, it was an important procedural rule.
Most likely because only those kind of important rules lead to a decision being overturned. But it was a hyper technical procedural rule that was violated, not a determination that Judge Mata should be taken off the bench or Laura is a nice pregnant lady. It’s gonna be somebody didn’t provide the right type of notice within the right time period and therefore this award can’t stand.
That’s what it’s gonna be.
And let’s also not forget, she could win the appeal and still be criminally prosecuted by the state of Arizona. Correct. This investigation could still happen. What is still going on? And she could get a, Hey, we are going to prosecute you now.
Absolutely. And, you know, I don’t certainly don’t want to spawn any more litigation out of this, but, you know, you can’t sue someone for defamation for things they’ve said in court because then every court case would spawn a bunch of defamation lawsuits, but she could win the appeal and Clayton could still sue her for something like defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, things like that for her conduct outside of court.
court if he chose to, even if she wins and the court says, Laura, you completely win because it’s not going to be a verdict on her truthfulness or her behavior. It’s going to be a hyper technical legal decision.
Yeah, and I mean, just looking at it from the outside, do you think he’s got a defamation case against him?
Oh, I
can’t. Oh, Steve, don’t put me in that position. Look, all, all I know is that I’ve, I’ve seen some of the interviews he’s done. I’ve seen some of the interviews she’s done. I’ve seen a little bit of both. And I know that this has been very, very difficult for both of them. And I have only thus far seen evidence that she has made false statements to the public.
I have not seen evidence that he has made material false statements to the public. Only she. I’m going to leave it at that because I certainly don’t want to encourage these two to engage in any more litigation. And frankly, I don’t know that Clayton, Even if Clayton won a 20 million defamation lawsuit against her, where’s he going to get the money from?
So I’m not trying to spawn, you know, more litigation.
Yeah. And when I spoke to Clayton on the phone, once this story broke and You know, the one thing with him is always, he’s always been consistent with his story and she obviously has been all over the map with so many different things that she has said about this pregnancy and when she found this out and when she sent this and all that.
So it’s just, it’s very, it’s a lot easier to believe Clayton, but they take that Gingras and Laura as, Oh, you’re just piling on Laura, you don’t believe. I have a reason not to believe her. I’ve. I’ve been in contact with her through emails and the information that she sent me on emails, I just don’t believe.
So I’m allowed to have an opinion of, I don’t believe her. I just feel that she’s a liar and none of this stuff is adding up to me. And That’s where it just gets so hairy between them because they think if you don’t believe her, then you are obviously anti, you’re against her and you’re not allowing her to speak her mind.
That’s why they’re doing all these YouTube videos now. That’s why she’s starting a Patreon, a podcast on Patreon. She wants to get her story out there. It’s like, First off, you’ve written a few medium blogs that we’ve all read. We already know what your story is going to be. And after 15 months, you’re now going to start this while you’re under criminal investigation.
You’re going to start a podcast. I don’t know. Doesn’t seem like a smart thing for to do, but that’s just right. And I also,
I also would, I also did wonder when I saw she was kind of going out there and starting a podcast, she may be looking to find people to sue. Maybe. I don’t know that. But if, but everyone should beware.
If they go on and sort of leave public comments on her podcast, it, it, I have every indication from what they’ve said that, that Laura and Gingras are looking to sue people after this. I, I don’t know if that’s actually true, but they’ve said it is. And so, This may be an invitation to people to try to continue to bash her so that they can go on a further litigation war, you know, I don’t know, but it is, it’s concerning to me.
And I think the last thing I’ll say is, you know, you said you have reason to disbelieve her because you’ve spoken to her, which is absolutely true, but also legally. You are allowed to say based on what I know, I don’t believe her. That’s that that’s not a statement of fact that can be defamatory to anybody.
Right? So all of this talk about, we’re going to sue everybody for defamation, right? To sue someone for defamation, you have to say something that is false and injurious to someone saying, I think she’s a liar. Is your opinion. Now, it happens to be a well founded opinion in your case, maybe others aren’t as well founded because they haven’t had as much to go off of, but even poorly founded opinions are allowed to be put out there as long as their opinions
and sometimes I haven’t prefaced what I say about her with, Hey, my opinion is she’s She lied.
Sometimes they just say, Laura, you’re a liar. You’re a fraud. Like sometimes they just let it blurt like that, but it’s all based on this. Hey, I’ve had interaction with her. So maybe he’s jumping on the fact that I made a statement, Laura, you’re a liar and Laura, you’re a fraudster. And Laura, I think you’re a very litigious person, which is, I guess, factually correct, but
yes, exactly.
Right. So there’s two points there. Yeah. It’s, you have a factual defense. You can actually prove she lied. As could I. I could show she said under oath that she went to Planned Parenthood and Mission Viejo. I have now proven that she lied. So that’s defense number one. It’s true. But also, the law is a little more forgiving.
Like when you call someone, you know, a blowhard. I’m trying to think of a word I can say on your podcast, right? You’re, everyone knows that you mean, you mean that figuratively, right? Okay, go with the easiest one to explain is asshole, right? You’re not actually asserting that this person is an asshole.
You are basically saying your opinion that they’re a jerk, right? So it’s the same thing, most likely with a liar. If you’re just saying, oh, she’s a liar and a fraud. Courts understand that you’re not making a material, representation of fact. If you were, it’s still okay because you have truth as your defense.
But the courts understand that you really have to lie about someone, not just offer negative takes on them and calling someone a liar is like calling them an asshole. You know, there’s there’s it’s it’s Your thoughts. And everyone knows that. So you’re fine on either on either account. But the part about her being a liar, that’s a really important one.
Because anybody sued for saying that goes in with the Mission Viejo deposition testimony and the Los Angeles trial testimony and says, Here you go. On one of these occasions, she lied under oath and that defeats the defamation claim. So I don’t know what they’re, who they’re, who they’re planning to sue.
How about, how about me saying, and me personally believing she was never pregnant at any point from May 20th of last year until now, but on a podcast saying she lied about her pregnancy. I mean, is it same thing? Like, look. I don’t believe that she was ever pregnant, but saying on my podcast, like I have quite a few times over the last 15 months, this woman was never pregnant.
I don’t believe, you know, I don’t even know if I followed it up with, I don’t believe her, but just saying this woman was never pregnant. Obviously that means in my opinion, yes, I mean, yes,
you’re fine. Everybody understands what you’re trying to say, but also, I mean, you’re talking about worst case scenario.
This is never going to happen, but if there were a dispute, about whether or not if she sued a bunch of people for saying she was never pregnant, guess what? You would have a trial about whether she was pregnant
and then we’d be and guess what? She
would look, no, I guess what? She would lose the trial, right?
I mean, that’s kind of, that’s kind of where it goes. I mean, that’s, that’s like, you know, crazy land, not going to happen, you know, insane turn of events scenario, but that is what would happen. Is there would be, it would be like, you know, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, right? One of the things that would be on trial is, was it true?
So then we would have to relitigate, she would have to prove, she said, Reality Steve said, I was never pregnant, I was, we’re going to trial. She would have to prove that she was pregnant. And HGG tests and sonograms off the internet and all this stuff, like, that wouldn’t fly. She would have to prove that she’s pregnant.
So the standard of proof gets very complicated for a defamation case. In some places you have to prove it’s true. In some places the other party has to prove it’s not true, but either way, she not, she’s not going to win that argument with what she’s got.
Yeah, exactly.
I don’t think any jury finds, yes, this woman was pregnant.
Oh, this is fascinating. And then in about 30 days or however long, I know they have till December 24th, I believe, Woodnick’s firm to respond to the appeal, but I’m sure there will be more YouTube videos posted in the next couple of weeks. But, and I don’t think, I mean, this was the main thing we were waiting for, we’ll obviously hear Woodnick’s appeal to or response to Gingras appeal and we’ll, we’ll dive into that probably after the new year, but Rachel, thanks again for coming on.
I, I love talking to you. It makes it so much easier for me to understand certain things in this case. I know the audience certainly loves it. And obviously we will, we will keep in touch. We will be updating anything that happens on this case. And again, thanks for coming on. I really appreciate it.
Got it.
We’ll talk soon.
Yep. Thank you so much to Rachel for coming on. I can’t tell you how cool it is that, you know, Rachel was the one that reached out to me. When the whole Devin stuff came out, like that’s the reason we first had her on. If you’ve forgotten already, because the last three or four times she’s been on, it’s all been about the Clayton and Laura case, but she originally just emailed me out of the blue and said, followed your podcast, saw what you said about Devin.
If you want some legal expertise behind this, I’d love to come on. And then ever since then, she has immersed herself in this case. Yes, she hasn’t been following it since the Sun article came out last September, but the fact that she’s read every briefing, she is a family law attorney, she is a quote unquote judge on the Hot Bench show, we know that this is a woman that knows exactly what she’s talking about.
And, I don’t know if Gingras will ever address her. I hope he does. I hope he listens to one of these podcasts and I, I’m actually surprised up to this point that he hasn’t made some sort of crack about how reality Steve puts a TV judge on his podcast because. Gingras. I wouldn’t go there if I were you, because have you seen her resume?
Have you seen her schooling? It blows yours away. So make the crack about reality. Steve putting a TV judge on his podcast and you will get destroyed because she is so much more qualified than you. And. Anyway, just wanted to put that out there. I’m, like I said, I’m, I’m a little surprised. Gingras hasn’t made a comment, but I don’t know.
Maybe he doesn’t listen to my podcast. He knows exactly who I am. He knows, Laura knows who I am. I’ve got every email that Laura ever sent me. I could throw those back in Gingras’s face and say, your client is a nut job. Look at what she used to send me back from September through December of last year.
So just stay away, Gingras. That’s all I’m saying. Anyway, thank you so much to Laura for coming on. Thank you for listening. Really appreciate it. Follow me on Apple podcasts also rate and review, but you got to hit play. It’s the only way it counts as a download the sports daily coming up in an hour from now and in two hours from now, we’re going to dive into all this love is blind stuff.
Mostly with Tyler and Ashley, but apparently. Brittany is involved in some drama cheating on her current boyfriend with TikToker Ricky wise, and that’s coming up in a couple hours. She’s the one that spoke to. Tyler’s baby mama, numerous occasions has had her on her tick tock, had her on her Instagram, done interviews with her.
Really good conversation coming up with Ricky wise at 9 15 a. m. Eastern time. It’s going to be in your podcast feed and also on my YouTube channel. So Anyway. Thanks again for listening. Thanks again to Rachel Juarez and I will talk to you tomorrow.
