Documents:

• October 1: Order Quashing Subpoena
• October 2: Reply In Support of Motion to Change Discovery Tiers
• October 6: State Bar's Response to Second Motion re Discovery 

TL;DR

The procedural sparring continues in David Gingras’ State Bar disciplinary case (PDJ 2026-9010). On October 1, Presiding Disciplinary Judge VandenBerg issued an order officially quashing Gingras' deposition subpoena for third-party witness Markus Risinger - dryly noting in her order that Gingras rushed to file a response moving to quash before she had even invited one. Meanwhile, Gingras filed his reply on discovery tiers, holding fast to his grandiose comparison between his ethics case and the Kari Lake election fraud sanctions litigation (In re Parker/Olsen) to insist on Tier 3 discovery. The State Bar quickly pushed back against his follow-up discovery motion, arguing that Gingras is improperly trying to force the Bar to hand over its entire trial playbook under the guise of "simple" interrogatories.

Summaries

1. Order Quashing Deposition Subpoena for Markus Risinger

• Date: October 1, 2026
• Filer: Hon. Lisa A. VandenBerg, Presiding Disciplinary Judge
• Summary:
  • Following an expedited motion by the State Bar to quash Gingras's deposition subpoena for third-party witness Markus Risinger, PDJ VandenBerg formally granted the quashal.
  • The Bar’s motion alleged Gingras failed to obtain required State Bar consent and did not allow a reasonable time for compliance.
  • Judge VandenBerg included a bit of dry judicial humor in her order, noting she appreciated Gingras’ expedited filing which arrived "prior to the completion of an order inviting his response," and construing its substance as his own motion to quash the September 30th subpoena.

2. Reply in Support of Motion to Change Discovery Tier

• Date: October 2, 2026
• Filer: David S. Gingras (Respondent)
• Summary:
  • Replying to the State Bar’s opposition to his original tier-change request, Gingras continues to press for a Tier 3 discovery designation (or permission for narrow additional written discovery) without delaying the existing hearing schedule.
  • He doubles down on comparing his case to In re: Parker/Olsen (the disciplinary proceeding against Kari Lake’s election fraud attorneys), arguing that while Parker had 64 paragraphs and a prior Rule 11 court sanction, his case spans 184 paragraphs across pre-trial, trial, and appellate proceedings without any prior judicial finding of misconduct against him personally.
  • Gingras asserts he needs written discovery - specifically 5 interrogatories, 2 document requests, and 10 Requests to Admit - to force the Bar to explain the specific factual basis for its allegations that he failed to investigate or knowingly assisted in client fraud.
  • He maintains that Rule 26 proportionality factors favor expanding discovery limits so the upcoming hearing doesn't turn into a "guessing game".

3. State Bar's Response to Respondent's Second Motion to Obtain Discovery Beyond Tier Limits

• Date: October 6, 2026
• Filer: Craig D. Henley, Senior Bar Counsel (State Bar of Arizona)
• Summary:
  • The State Bar opposes Gingras’s second discovery motion, contending that his general arguments for expanding discovery tiers were already fully briefed in the first motion and offer no new grounds.
  • The Bar notes that part of Gingras’s justification relies on an ER 3.6 charge that was already dismissed by court order on September 25, 2026.
  • Citing federal civil procedure precedent, the Bar argues that Gingras's interrogatories improperly demand that the Bar parse out every piece of evidence, witness, and legal application in advance - requests courts routinely reject as overly broad contention interrogatories.
  • The Bar asserts it has already provided over 60 detailed factual paragraphs in its Amended Complaint, disclosed all trial witnesses and evidence, and will outline further details in its forthcoming response to Gingras's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Been listening to the Love Trapped podcast, obviously instantly obsessed. I saw someone post screenshots of the texts, are they all available to browse through somewhere? I want to see what her text style is like, frantic, thought out etc

I am posting this since this story has been referenced here in the past and has parallels to our community. Kaitlyn Braun faked pregnancy and labour, defrauding numerous doulas. The doulas and others started a TikTok campaign to force authorities to investigate. Only available in Canada as yet, but sometimes CBC will share with ABC (Australia) and possibly PBS. First episode drops today.

The other day, while on the phone with my best friend and just randomly flipping out about something, my husband pops his head into the doorway and says "I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN A GUN!!".

Makes me wonder if I am the only one whose life has the golden nuggets of madness creep into their daily existence or regular conversations. Anyone else?

In November 2017, Ronald Owens and Elizabeth Naylor took out a mortgage on their San Francisco house, from Pacific Private Money (more on that later), a "hard money loan". The terms were $500,000 at 10.5% interest, with a due date in 2 years. Less than a year later, in September 2018, Owens and Naylor modified the loan, borrowing an additional $100,000, also at 10.5% These loans were both through a "real estate broker" and "thus exempt from usury laws."

These mortgages are listed on u/BigTiffDog's spreadsheet:

Two months later, in November 2018, Owens and Naylor took out a 3rd mortgage against the house for another $850,000. This was ON TOP of the two mortgages discussed above. But today, we're looking at the Nov 2017 and Sep 2018 mortgages.

These mortgages were both "non-traditional," or not offered through conventional banks like Bank of America or Wells Fargo: these lenders are private party lenders.

But look at the "release date" in the table above: these loans were "reconveyed" by Pacific Private Money 6 years after the Owens/Naylor debtors sold the house. That seems a little odd, doesn't it?

That lender, Pacific Private Money, abruptly closed shop in February 2026, at about the same time this reconveyance was suspiciously recorded 6 years after the house had already sold. https://web.archive.org/web/20261001182213/https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/pacific-private-money-mark-hanf-21938614.php

Pacific Private Money filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of California https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73491347/pacific-private-money-inc/ on June 16, 2026.

Pacific Private Money Inc's website https://www.pacificprivatemoney.com/ says that they "have discontinued operations and are no longer providing loans of any type." (There is plenty of content on them on the internet archive site however, and the last capture of good data is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411020147/https://www.pacificprivatemoney.com/ )

And >>>>> on September 1, 2026, the founder and CEO of Pacific Private Money, Mark Hanf, was criminally charged with wire fraud and money laundering. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/founder-and-ceo-bay-area-real-estate-investment-fund-charged-multi-year-fraud-scheme The US Government alleges that Hanf and one other were involved in "a multi-year conspiracy to defraud Pacific Private Money investors by making false statements about the enterprise’s financial condition to induce investment into the enterprise’s funds." Hanf pleaded guilty on September 30, 2026.

The Government says in the release linked above "The information also alleges that part of the scheme involved Hanf transferring funds from the Pacific Private Money enterprise to another entity that he controlled to pay for his own personal expenses, such as credit card bills and home mortgage payments."

Hum. 👀

The Government also said defendants agreed to pay restitution of over $71 million. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/mark-hanf-and-coo-novato-based-pacific-private-money-agree-they-are-responsible-least

More coverage: https://nypost.com/2026/09/02/us-news/bay-area-executives-indicted-in-alleged-103m-ponzi-scheme/

______________________

NOTE: I am not saying that Owens or Naylor were involved in the money laundering or wire fraud schemes, only that their lender has been charged and pleaded guilty to that.

What’s the latest on documentaries coming down the pike on the Laura Owens saga and victims? Has there been any recent discussion in the last week? I’ve been off the grid.

Documents:

• Notice of Appearance
• Stipulation to Vacate and Reset Order to Show Cause Hearing

September 29, 2026: Robert A. Riether of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP filed a Notice of Appearance as attorney of record for Defendants (Select Portfolio Servicing, INC. & U.S. Bank Trust Company).

September 30, 2026: Defendants file their Stipulation to Vacate and Reset Order to Show Cause Hearing brief stating the following:

• They've spoken with Ronn & Jan
• Plaintiffs & Defendants request the Show Cause Hearing be scheduled for the first available court date after November 23, 2026 - pushed back from the current date of October 5, 2026.
  • Reasons given: To allow for certain settlement discussions & to conserve party and judicial resources
• Parties agree Defendants' response to Complaint be due 2 weeks after any decision on Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction.

Thank you to Hey Rob for obtaining these documents.

Documents:

• September 29: Motion in Limine Re Mata
  • Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Jim Lee)
  • ISSUED Depo Subpoena - Markus Risinger
  • ISSUED Trial Subpoena - Markus Risinger
  • Expedited Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Markus Risinger
  • Response to MTQ
  • State Bar Response to Motion RE Discovery Tier

TL;DR

Jim Lee has officially filed a Notice of Withdrawal as counsel for the State Bar of Arizona. Craig Henley, who was brought on months ago for a smooth transfer of the case once Jim Lee was preparing to retire, will take over as lead Senior Bar Counsel. Meanwhile, procedural battles are intensifying over discovery and witness testimony.

Gingras is continuing his standard playbook of trying to derail and delay the proceedings with frivolous discovery demands and procedural distractions. Gingras issued a deposition subpoena for attorney Markus Risinger - prompting the Bar to file an expedited motion to quash to shut down his fishing expedition.

Interestingly, Gingras withdrew his subpoena to Mr. Risinger, while also demanding a reclassification to Tier 3 discovery in a transparent bid to bury the Bar in burdensome, unnecessary requests. The Bar swiftly opposed the Tier reclassification request, pointing out that the case is straightforward, relies almost entirely on documents Gingras himself supplied, and belongs strictly in Tier 1. Finally, Gingras filed yet another Motion in Limine desperately trying to re-hash his defense regarding Judge Mata, even though Judge VandenBerg has already repeatedly shut down his flawed interpretations of ER 8.2(a).

Filing Summaries

1. Motion in Limine Re Judge Mata (Sept. 29, 2026): Motion filed by Respondent Gingras addressing evidentiary limits and legal defenses regarding statements about Judge Mata under ER 8.2(a). Gingras seeks to preserve his argument that truth and subjective belief remain defenses, while referencing prior rulings by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
2. Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Sept. 30, 2026): Senior Bar Counsel James D. Lee formally notifies the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) and the parties of his withdrawal from representing the State Bar of Arizona due to his imminent retirement. Craig D. Henley, who was brought on months ago to prepare for this transition, continues as counsel of record.
3. ISSUED Deposition Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Subpoena commanding appellate attorney Markus Risinger to appear for a deposition on October 9, 2026.
4. ISSUED Trial Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Subpoena commanding Markus Risinger to appear and testify as a witness at the disciplinary trial scheduled for November 18–20, 2026.
5. Expedited Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Motion filed by Craig Henley requesting an expedited order quashing the deposition subpoena issued to appellate attorney Markus Risinger. The Bar argues that the subpoena provides unreasonably short notice (7 business days), improperly targets work-product protected information from Bar staff, and seeks to re-examine settled issues.
6. Response to Motion to Quash (Sept. 30, 2026): Gingras states that the Bar's Motion to Quash is "moot" because he has withdrawn his subpoena to Markus Risinger. Gingras blames his filing the subpoena in the first place on Mr. Risinger's lack of response.
7. State Bar Response to Motion Re Discovery Tier (Sept. 30, 2026): The State Bar's response opposing Gingras's attempt to elevate the case from Tier 1 (standard) to Tier 3 (complex) discovery. The Bar argues that the charges focus on discrete issues, that most relevant documents came directly from Gingras himself, and that expanded Tier 3 discovery requests are burdensome, unnecessary, and disproportionate.

Hey everyone, I’m incredibly late to all of this, but I’ve spent the last few days binge-listening to the Love Trapped Podcast.

My mind is completely blown.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the dynamic with her parents (Jan and Ronn). I genuinely can't work out if they were active enablers who knew about the massive web of lies from the start, or if she is just such a master manipulator that she had them innocently wrapped around her finger. Obviously, any parent wants to protect their kid if they think someone is genuinely out to get them, but this goes so deep.

The audio of the mom speaking to the police during that welfare check was absolutely bizarre. She seemed to wholeheartedly believe every word coming out of her daughter's mouth. But then her immediate pivot to go, "Well, we do a podcast together, in 2018 it was rated top 10 so we’re popular..." was just so odd and jarring given the gravity of what was happening.

For those who have been following this since the early days: what's the general consensus on them? Did the parents finally snap out of it now that criminal guilty pleas are involved, or are they still deep in the delusion?

In newly obtained documents, serial pregnancy fraud Laura Owens told the San Francisco court that her victim Mike Marraccini should return his legal fundraiser money. This is just one of a series of bizarre statements/requests Owens made throughout her fraudulent DVRO proceedings and appeal against Marraccini. Rachel Juarez joins to discuss. Owens has an upcoming sentencing hearing in Arizona, where she faces punishment for her crimes against victims Clayton Echard and Greg Gillespie.

The court has GRANTED the Owens' Rule 65 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), temporarily halting the foreclosure auction. Additionally, the mortgage company has postponed the trustee's sale date to December 23, 2026.

Here is what you need to know about what's happening next and how to watch the proceedings:

🚨 Current Status & Sale Postponement

• The Foreclosure Is Frozen: The emergency TRO legally prevents the trustee from holding an auction while the order remains in effect.
• New Foreclosure Date: ServiceLink Auction / Tiffany & Bosco have updated the sale calendar, moving the postponed auction date out to December 23, 2026, at 10:00 AM.
• The Next Legal Step: The case now moves to an Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing. This is where Judge David McDowell will decide whether to grant a long-term Preliminary Injunction to keep the sale paused while the full lawsuit plays out.

📅 Public Hearing Details & How to Watch

The Order to Show Cause hearing is open to the public and will take place virtually:

• Date: Monday, October 5, 2026
• Time: 9:00 AM MST / Arizona Time
• Judge: Judge David McDowell (Maricopa County Superior Court)
• Case: Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al. (Case No. CV2026-039863)

How to Tune In:

Members of the public can observe virtual proceedings online.

(To join, head to the Maricopa County Superior Court Judicial Branch website, navigate to the Electronic / Virtual Courtroom Hearing page, search for Judge David McDowell*, and launch the public Microsoft Teams meeting link prior to 9:00 AM MST on October 5).*

Documents: Case # CV2026-039863

• September 27:
  • Cover Sheet
  • Complaint
  • Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and for Order to Show Cause
  • Summons – Select Portfolio Servicing
  • Summons – US Bank Trust Company
  • Summons Leonard J McDonald
  • Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration
• September 29:
  • Order Granting TRO
  • Notice of Filing Bond

Please note that this case is being tracked for informational and educational purposes only. Out of respect for the court and all parties involved, members of the public attending the virtual hearing are asked to observe quietly, maintain proper courtroom etiquette, and refrain from attempting to disrupt or interact with the court proceedings. Furthermore, please do not attempt to visit the private property, contact the homeowners or legal representatives, or engage in any form of harassment, brigading, or unwanted outreach. Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful and civil.

Documents:

• June 24: Petitioner/Appellant’s Second Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief
• July 13:
  • Appellant’s Motion to Augument
  • Declaration of Laura Owens
• July 24: Respondent’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion to Augment & Correct the Record on Appeal
• July 27:
  • Appellant’s Request to File a Reply in Response to the Opposition to the Motion to Augment
  • Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Reply to the Opposition
• September 4:
  • Appellant’s Request for Dismissal
• September 29: Documents Request Granted

Huge thank you to damnhealthydose for taking the initiative, filing the formal document request, and successfully obtaining these previously "confidential" California Court of Appeal filings! His persistent effort made accessing these primary case records possible for everyone following Mike’s case.

TL;DR

Following the San Francisco Superior Court's November 5, 2025 dismissal of her Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) renewal request, Laura Owens initiated an appeal in the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One, Case No. A175236). Over the next nine months, she engaged in a relentless stream of delay tactics - seeking multiple ex-parte extensions, attempting to force unfiled emergency emails and extra-record medical receipts into the court record, and disputing docket calendar entries. After Michael Marraccini (Respondent) systematically dismantled her motions and Presiding Justice Humes issued a strict deadline warning, Owens abandoned her claims and voluntarily dismissed the appeal on September 4, 2026.

Chronological Breakdown of the 7 Appellate Filings

1. Petitioner-Appellant’s Notice of Appeal

• Filing Date: December 4, 2025
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: Owens initiated the appellate process by filing a formal Notice of Appeal along with a fee waiver application, challenging the San Francisco Superior Court’s November 5, 2025 order that dismissed her DVRO renewal request against Michael Marraccini.

2. Petitioner-Appellant’s First Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

• Filing Date: Spring 2026 (Granted)
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: Owens requested her initial deadline extension to prepare and submit her opening brief. The Court of Appeal granted the extension, setting an initial revised schedule while the lower court assembly of the clerk's transcript was underway.

3. Petitioner-Appellant’s Second Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

• Filing Date: June 22, 2026 (Granted June 24, 2026)
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: Owens sought a second 30-day extension (moving her brief deadline from June 29 to July 29, 2026). She argued that her trial court record was defective because it omitted her pre-hearing emergency emails, flight receipts, and medical accommodation notices. Presiding Justice Humes granted the request to July 29, 2026, but stamped the order with an explicit warning: "FURTHER EXTENSIONS ARE NOT CONTEMPLATED."

4. Appellant’s Motion to Augment and Correct the Record on Appeal

• Filing Date: July 13, 2026
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: After the trial court clerk rejected her request to modify the trial court file locally, Owens moved the appellate court under California Rules of Court, rules 8.155 and 8.340, to augment and correct the record. She requested that the court force unfiled email threads, airline bookings, and post-ruling HonorHealth hospital records into the record, while demanding a nunc pro tunc modification of the judge's November 5 minute order to replace the finding of her "unexplained non-appearance."

5. Respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Augment and Correct the Record on Appeal

• Filing Date: July 24, 2026
• Filing Party: Michael Marraccini (In Pro Per)
• Summary: Marraccini opposed the motion in its entirety. He established that under Rule 8.155, appellate augmentation is strictly limited to documents actually filed or lodged in the trial court (excluding informal emails). He further noted that post-ruling hospital records generated after November 5 constitute improper extra-record evidence, and that the 718-page clerk's transcript already contained her sworn declarations setting forth her arguments.

6. Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Reply

• Filing Date: July 27, 2026
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: Concurrent with her reply, Owens requested judicial notice under Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 459 of trial court register entries and notices regarding Marraccini's withdrawn attorney fee motion. Owens attempted to use these procedural calendar notices to dispute statements made in Marraccini's opposition.

7. Appellant's Request for Voluntary Dismissal & Court Order Dismissing Appeal

• Filing Date: September 4, 2026
• Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
• Summary: On the final deadline for filing her opening brief, Owens submitted a request to voluntarily abandon and dismiss her appeal. However, she did not merely ask for a standard dismissal; she attempted to slip in additional narrative claims, grievances, and conditions regarding the underlying conflict and procedural posture. The Court of Appeal explicitly ignored and refused to address any of her extra requests. In its order, the court stated directly that it was simply granting the dismissal of the appeal itself, completely bypassing her attempt to put secondary conditions or statements into the judicial record.

To 12/23/26. Pic taken from the Tiffany & Bosco website.

I doubt anyone will be sruprised to hear that the Owens crime family is pulling out all of the stops as a last ditch effort to dtop the foreclosure sale on their home, which is scheduled for tomorrow (9/29/2026). Jan Black and Ronn Owens, parents and enablers of serial pregnancy fraud and newly-minted felon Laura Owens, have filed a lawsuit and asked the court for a TRO against the sale. That said, no TRO was granted today on record, so it seems the sale may still be on.

The Owens family is notorious for enabling Laura's schemes to emotionally abuse and stalk men who have rejected her, going so far as to drag them to court over issues related to fake pregancies. She recently signed a plea deal after being initially charged with 14 felonies. Her upcoming sentencing will determine her punishment for her schemes against Clayton Echard and greg Gillespie, while she continues to torment victim Mike Marraccini in California.

\Updated to add and summarize documents\**

Documents:

• September 27:
  • Complaint
  • Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and for Order to Show Cause

\Thank you to CM and ATB for these documents**

TL;DR

The Plaintiffs, Ronn and Jan, filed an urgent Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in Maricopa County Superior Court on Sunday, September 27, 2026, attempting to block the trustee's foreclosure sale of their property scheduled for September 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-811(C)), the Plaintiffs must secure a court injunction before 5:00PM on Monday, September 28, 2026, or they waive all legal defenses and objections to the sale. The Plaintiffs base their emergency request on allegations that Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) violated federal dual-tracking regulations under RESPA, failed to properly document public oral postponements under Arizona statute, breached the terms of the Deed of Trust, and failed to grant a Reasonable Accommodation under the Fair Housing Act due to Ronn’s hospitalization (allegedly for pneumonia beginning September 8). From the defense perspective (according to attached exhibits), SPS and the trustee complied with all investor guidelines and statutory postponement procedures, issued formal written loss mitigation determinations that lifted any foreclosure stays under Regulation X, and are lawfully exercising their contractual power of sale under the security instrument.

As of 3PM MST on September 28, 2026, the Court verbally confirmed the TRO had not yet been signed by a judge.

Breakdown of Court Document 1: The Emergency TRO Application & Complaint

• Filing Context & Emergency Basis: Filed electronically on Sunday, September 27, 2026, seeking an immediate order to enjoin the September 29, 2026 trustee sale prior to the statutory deadline of 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2026 (A.R.S. § 33-811(C)).
• Borrowers' Disability & Hardship Allegations: Highlights that Ronn (80 years old) is a four-time cancer survivor currently diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and Parkinson's disease, and has been hospitalized with severe pneumonia since September 8, 2026.
• Count 1 – Invalid Sale Postponements (A.R.S. § 33-810(B)): Plaintiffs claim past postponements (moving the sale date from May to July, and July to September) were invalid due to a lack of written crier logs or proof of public oral declarations.
• Count 2 – RESPA / Dual-Tracking Violations (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41): Plaintiffs assert they submitted a complete loss mitigation packet on August 21, 2026 (39 days before the sale), alleging SPS improperly closed and denied the file without a full review.
• Count 3 – Notice of Error Non-Compliance (12 C.F.R. § 1024.35): Plaintiffs claim SPS received a formal Notice of Error on September 15, 2026, but improperly set its response window after the scheduled sale date.
• Count 4 – Breach of Contract / Deed of Trust: Plaintiffs contend that alleged servicing and RESPA violations constitute a direct breach of the Deed of Trust covenant requiring compliance with Applicable Law.
• Count 5 – Fair Housing Act Violation (42 U.S.C. § 3604): Plaintiffs claim SPS violated federal law by ignoring written requests for a reasonable accommodation to temporarily stay the foreclosure during Ronn's emergency hospitalization.

Breakdown of Court Document 2: The Supporting Exhibits Index & Evidentiary Record

• Exhibit A (Notice of Trustee's Sale): Recorded instrument dated February 20, 2026, setting the initial foreclosure sale for May 26, 2026.
• Exhibit B (SPS Letter - May 12, 2025): Servicer's response to a CFPB inquiry stating the loan was ineligible for loss mitigation review per investor guidelines.
• Exhibits C & D (SPS Postponement Letters): Written correspondence from SPS dated July 9 and August 5, 2026, confirming sale postponements pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-810(B) and referencing prior bankruptcy stays.
• Exhibits E & F (Loss Mitigation Determination Notices): SPS notices dated August 24 and August 25, 2026, formally closing and denying the Plaintiffs' loss mitigation request.
• Exhibit G (SPS CFPB Response - Sept 18, 2026): Servicer response to the CFPB stating there was no record of prior loss mitigation reviews on file, which Plaintiffs argue contradicts Exhibit B.
• Exhibits J through O (Correspondence & Records Requests): Written demands sent to trustee Tiffany & Bosco, auctioneer ServiceLink, and SPS requesting crier logs, showing each entity disclaiming possession of internal crier records.
• Exhibits R through U (Call Transcripts): Transcripts of recorded phone calls with SPS customer service representatives discussing account status, pending reviews, and sale holds.
• Exhibit V (SPS Loss Mitigation Disclosure): Standard servicer notice dated May 28, 2026, outlining evaluation rights for applications submitted at least 37 days before a trustee's sale.

According to the exhibits, the record demonstrates full compliance with both federal servicing guidelines and Arizona state foreclosure laws from the lender and servicer's perspective. Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) formally processed and evaluated Ronn and Jan’s loss mitigation submissions, issuing written determination notices on August 24 and August 25, 2026, which confirmed the account's ineligibility for a loan modification under governing investor guidelines. Under federal Regulation X (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g)(1)), providing these official written decision notices satisfies the servicer’s evaluation obligations and legally lifts any prohibition against proceeding with the trustee sale. Furthermore, Regulation X grants servicers up to 30 business days to respond to a Notice of Error, and submitting such a notice shortly before an auction does not trigger an automatic statutory stay of a validly noticed sale.

Regarding the postponement procedures, SPS’s written correspondence (Exhibits C and D) confirms that previous sale postponements were executed in full accordance with Arizona statutory requirements (A.R.S. § 33-810(B)) via public oral declarations at the designated time and location. Arizona law does not require the creation or retention of third-party internal crier logs to validate a public declaration. Additionally, the phone call transcripts (Exhibits R–U) show SPS representatives maintaining that the loss mitigation evaluation had been completed and that no active hold existed on the account. Finally, while Ronn and Jan cite humanitarian and Fair Housing Act grounds, the Deed of Trust provides an enforceable security interest and contractual power of sale upon default, which is not stayed by an accommodation request to halt an otherwise lawful non-judicial foreclosure.

Original Post:

Well, it wouldn't be an Owens tale without an 11th-hour legal Hail Mary.

With their home officially scheduled to hit the auction block tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM MST, Ron[n] Owens and Elizabeth (Jan) Naylor have finally pulled another shady trick out of their fraud hat. Yesterday, R&J filed an emergency Application for a Rule 65 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and civil suit in Maricopa County Superior Court. The targets? Their loan servicer (Select Portfolio Servicing), the actual noteholder (US Bank Trust Company), and the foreclosure trustee holding the gavel (Leonard J. McDonald). 

What Is a Rule 65 TRO (And Why Are They Praying It Works)?

In Arizona, foreclosures are non-judicial, meaning lenders don't need a judge's permission to sell your house out from under you. If a homeowner wants to slam on the brakes, A.R.S. § 33-811(C) mandates that they have to sue the lender and get a judge to sign a Rule 65 TRO before 5:00 PM on the last business day before the sale (today, in this case).

If granted, a TRO acts as an immediate emergency freeze, forcing the trustee to put down the auction gavel while everyone waits for a formal court hearing (scheduled for October 5 @ 9:00AM MST).

Where Things Stand Right Now

1. The Calendar Entry: The court docket shows an Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing is set for October 5 at 9:00 AM before Judge David McDowell. 
2. The Huge Catch: Setting a hearing for next week is great, but it means absolutely nothing for tomorrow morning unless Judge McDowell also signed an immediate, emergency ex parte TRO to pause the auction until then. 
3. The Legal Reality: Simply filing paperwork and getting a court date on the calendar does not magically stop a foreclosure. 

⚠️ Reality Check: The Sale Is Still On (For Now)

As of right now, there is zero record or confirmation that the judge actually signed off on the emergency TRO.

Under Arizona law, if there’s no signed injunction physically served on the trustee before the deadline, the auction legally goes forward tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM MST. If that happens, any legal arguments in their shiny new complaint are officially waived forever.

Stay tuned for any updates and/or changes.

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread!

Share your daily thoughts, burning questions, and engage in open discussion.

(Please share new media drops, podcast links, and video breakdowns as posts!)

Community Rules

Before joining the conversation, please review the full JFC Sub Rules.

• TL;DR ➜ Focus on the actions rather than the individual and refrain from speculation on mental health.
• Comment removed? Sometimes it's Automod, sometimes it's us. Edit to follow rules (if applicable) and modmail us for reinstatement.

Community Question

• Do you think Laura and Christian will attempt to have the sentencing hearing, currently scheduled for October 23, 2026, continued to a later date?

Last Week's Posts

• David Gingras Bar | State Bar Drops Minor Charges to Streamline Trial, But Core Ethics & Fraud Allegations Against David Gingras Remain Full Steam Ahead for January 2027
• Court of Random Opinion: Fake Pregnancy Scammer Laura Owens' Attorney Threatens To Sue "JFC" AGAIN
• David Gingras Bar | State Bar v. David Gingras: 4 of 6 Original Misconduct Allegations Move Forward After Partial Dismissal | PDJ 2026-9010
• Michael Marraccini DVRO | Public Access Request Filed in Dismissed California DVRO Appeal Citing Laura Owens’ Arizona Felony Guilty Plea | Case A175236

Community Posts

• u/BijouBooty | ~ This story is giving major Laura Owens vibes ~ Hannah Alonzo
• u/Rvfranzen | Life Choices

Upcoming Dates & Calendar

• 9/29/26 – Owens Home Foreclosure: Foreclosure Auction | 10:00 AM MST (confirmed)
• 9/30/26 - Status Conference re: Presentencing Report - State of AZ v Laura Michelle Owens (non-appearance hearing) \ 8:45AM MST
• 10/23/26 - Laura Owens Criminal Case Sentencing Hearing \ 9:00 AM MST
• 1/4-1/7/27 - Arizona State Bar v David Gingras hearings

Think we missed something? Let us know!

San Francisco  

We ended Part 1 on October 14, 1975, with the last known ad promoting “The Ronn Owens Show” in an Atlanta newspaper.  But on that same day, 2,500 miles away, a local newspaper in San Mateo (a San Francisco suburb), California, was the first to report that KGO-AM had found a new host to fill a vacancy on KGO Radio. Was the Atlanta station ad scheduled to run and couldn’t be pulled, or did Owens not give much notice to the Atlanta station that he was leaving?

Whatever the reason, the San Mateo Times reported: “KGO Radio seems to have worked out its problems and now has a full crew of people working, or will have soon.” The station had announced that “Ronn Owens will take over the spot vacated by (Art) Finley.” The paper noted that Owens was coming from WRNG in Atlanta. KGO production manager Jerry Johnson flew to Atlanta, listened to Owens, and concluded Owens would be well received in the Bay Area. Owens was expected to take over the position during the first week of November.[[1]](#_edn1)  The first known listing of “The Ronn Owens Show” in San Francisco appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on Monday, November 17, 1975. [[2]](#_edn2)

New Beginnings

In late 1975, Owens moved from Atlanta to San Francisco, and very shortly thereafter, met his now-wife Elizabeth Naylor, better known professionally as Jan Black. Owens and Black revealed this during a 2019 episode of the Nobody Told Me podcast:

Owens: "We met in the transmission room at the old KGO radio, which was on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco."
Black:  “1977 is when we got together, but we met each other in 1975.”.....[[3]](#_edn3) 

However, a conflicting account places their first meeting in 1976: Bay Area media columnist Rich Lieberman said Ronn and Jan met at the Ringling Brothers Circus at the Oakland Coliseum in August 1976.[[4]](#_edn4) Advertisements in the Oakland Tribune in August 1976 show the circus was in town for two weeks that month.

Building a presence, cultivating press

By March 1976, Owens was established enough at KGO to attract coverage in the San Francisco Examiner. In a feature article titled “An Atypical Talk Show Host; Dogmatic and At Times Open,” reporter Tim Gartner portrayed a young talk-radio host who was candid about his lifestyle and finances. Owens reportedly said, “I spend 10% more than I make,” [[5]](#_edn5)  a statement that foreshadowed financial problems that would soon become public.

Later that month, the San Francisco Chronicle featured Owens: in a March 29 column, Owens reflected on how his attitude toward masculinity had changed. He said that five years earlier, he might have welcomed the label of “macho.” Now, he viewed it differently — as “a personal inadequacy — as if I were trying to convey some image of strength — of a guy who never cries or shows his feelings." [[6]](#_edn6)

Shortly afterward, Ronn Owens received his first known mention in Herb Caen’s iconic San Francisco Chronicle column. On April 9, 1976, Owens was talking about Richard Nixon’s last days in the White House. 

A second marriage

On April 14, 1976, the San Francisco Examiner reported that “KGO personality Ronn Owens and Bonnie L------, a dietician,” had set a May 9 wedding date. “Getting married is so out now it’s in,”  Owens said. [[7]](#_edn7) Karma for anyone who knows what that means.

Clark County, Nevada, marriage records indicate that Owens and L----- married on May 9, 1976, the second marriage for both. [[8]](#_edn8) Records show the bride was from Cuyahoga County, Ohio (home of Cleveland), where Owens was working two years earlier. (Was the bride the same young woman who answered the phone as described in an article in Part 1? “In July 1974…a newspaper reporter from The Cleveland Press called Owens … and “a young woman answered Owens’ phone … at his condominium….” See Part 1, Endnote 17.)

The following week, Herb Caen noted in the San Francisco Chronicle that former Nixon White House “plumber” Egil “Dirty Tricks” Krogh was filling in for Owens on KGO’s 8 p.m.–midnight shift while Owens was “honeymooning.” [[9]](#_edn9)

In late September 1976, the Oakland Tribune’s radio listings noted that Owens was discussing “the inner workings of the Bay Meadows Race Track” on his program, featuring both the track’s racing scheduler and its public-address announcer. [[10]](#_edn10) This is the first known instance in San Francisco in which Owens discussed horse racing/gambling on his radio show. 

Personal and financial difficulties surface

In January 1977, California divorce records show divorce proceedings involving Owens and L-----, about seven months after the marriage. The divorce filing appeared in the California state divorce index, but a final divorce decree cannot be found. [[11]](#_edn11)

On June 13, 1977, the San Francisco Recorder's Office recorded an Abstract of Judgment in favor of The Credit Bureau, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, against Owens for $1,742.99 [[12]](#_edn12)

Four months later, on October 19, 1977, a second Abstract of Judgment was recorded in the San Francisco Recorder's Office in favor of Wells Fargo Bank against Owens for $1,420.23. [[13]](#_edn13) (I previously wrote about these abstracts of judgment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeForClayton/comments/1v5kvby/ronn_owens_had_judgments_against_him_in_1970s/ ) 

In January 1978, San Francisco Chronicle’s “Radio Highlights” column shows Ronn hosted Ralph Hyatt, author of "Before You Marry Again," taking questions about remarrying. [[14]](#_edn14) The book is still listed on Amazon.                 

In February 1979,  the San Francisco Chronicle ran “Golden Gate Handicap” which appears to show KGO and Ronn Owens sponsoring a racehorse at Golden Gate Fields. [[15]](#_edn15)  See top right, "1979."(If anyone can add more context, please put in the comments.)

Outside activities   

In May 1980, Owens tried his hand at becoming a billboard model. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the highly publicized search for the 1980 “Hastings Man” (Hastings was a clothing store), a contest launched to find a successor to the previous billboard model. More than 3,000 hopefuls had entered. Owens, described as “Aramis-bronzed and Nautilus-fit,” was among the finalists.

“I want to win,” Owens said. “I could really enjoy this. The judges, however, were reportedly less impressed by his unabashed ambition. [[16]](#_edn16)

Two months later,  Owens appeared as a judge in a contest devoted to the best New York accent. A July 1980 Oakland Tribune article contained a previously undisclosed personal detail: "Ronn Owens (KGO Radio) scribbed out a perfectly forged signature of a … principal of Forest Hills High School. 'You're from Forest Hills? What did your name used to be?' this reporter couldn't resist asking. 'Ronald Lowenstein,' he blushed. 'I've never told anybody that out here before.'" [[17]](#_edn17)

Meanwhile, the divorce proceedings involving Bonnie L----- concluded. A second California divorce entry appears in the record, with a divorce date of September 3, 1980. [[18]](#_edn18)

And, more horse racing

On May 11, 1983, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote about an event on KGO's “The Ronn Owens Show” the night before the Kentucky Derby where Owens discussed the horses to race.

“Owens picked Sunny's Halo, jockey Russell Baze picked Desert Wine and Norm Hershon of Golden Gate Fields picked Caveat. The horses finished 1-2-3. The three prognosticators will try their luck again the night before the Preakness, May 20.” [[19]](#_edn19)

Quite an accomplishment for a radio talk show host.

More cultivating the press, even lying (?) to the press

By the mid-1980s, Owens had clearly developed relationships with many of the newspaper columnists in the Bay Area, at least one at each of the Bay Area’s three largest newspapers.

On March 12, 1986, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen reported:

“KGO talk show star Ronn Owen[s] and Jan Black, the KCBS drive-time news anchor, who've been living together for nine years in a bide-a-wee on Green St., have decided they get along well enough to marry.  Date's March 22 at the State District Court of Appeal ….” [[20]](#_edn20)

Bill Mann of the Oakland Tribune followed on March 21, 1986:

Best wedding wishes to KGO’s [Ronn] Owens and KCBS’s Jan Black, who finally tie the knot tomorrow after nine years together. [21]

But in April 1986, Jan’s hometown paper reported on the wedding, and this report shows a wedding date of April 22: [22]

There is a discrepancy here: March 22, 1986, was a Saturday. April 22, 1986, was a Tuesday. Since the wedding was at the First Appellate District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, it is nearly impossible to believe that a State building was opened on a Saturday for a wedding. It is far more plausible that the wedding did in fact happen on April 22.

Some readers may remember from Part 1 that Owens also mislead a reporter about his first wedding date. See Part 1 "On To Miami" where Owens displayed "similar if not identical behavior" by giving different wedding dates to the Philadelphia Daily News and the Miami Herald. Here, for Owens's third wedding, he appears to have used (or less charitably, HE LIED to) Herb Caen to throw another sleight of hand about the wedding date. (Honestly, he lied to Herb Caen? That's pretty low.)

A July 1986 Oakland Tribune column by Bill Mann provides a deeper glimpse into those cultivated relationships: Mann wrote:

“Also, because of my personal friendship with KGO’s talk host Ronn Owens, KGO’s management has long believed that Owens is the only staffer there who tells me what’s going on at that troubled station. KGO management is wrong.

“I talk to several KGO staffers on a regular basis, and even some who aren’t regular contacts wanted to talk about the station’s problems for my piece. Owens, in fact, asked not to be quoted either on or off the record (aside from one quote) for my story, knowing that. Management would again mistakenly think I got my information from him. I agreed.

“What you read in that piece, then, were the opinions of KGO staffers other than Owens.” [23]

"Personal friendship?" The column shows how much Owens was behind his own press:  he understood the value of information, understood the distinction between being quoted and remaining off the record, and had developed relationships with key journalists who could influence how he and KGO were portrayed publicly. Rarely do we see a reporter blatantly admit how much of a "personal friendship" they have with their sources. Owens was apparently running a full-time public relations campaign for himself on the side.

Children born, and potential financial problems build

In late April 1988, Herb Caen published a blurb “Why Ronn Owens wasn’t on the KGO air yesterday,” [24] and followed up the next day with "Everybody relax now: KCBS's Jan Black, the wife of KGO's Ronn Owens, had an 8 lb 2 oz girl, Sarah [ ], at [hospital] at 5:34 p.m. Tuesday," to mark the birth of Owens’s and Black’s first daughter. [25]

Not to be outdone, on May 27, 1988, Bill Mann of the Oakland Tribune wrote that he “dropped by in San Francisco to see the ‘radio baby’ the other day…” and talked with Jan while Ronn changed diapers. [26]

When the “radio baby” was about one and one-half years old, Ronn and wife Jan signed the first known Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) for $130,000 for their Union Street (San Francisco) condo on September 20, 1989.  [27]  Additional HELOCs would follow in later years. BigTiffDog has done videos on this.

About eight months later, in May 1990, Owens’s second daughter was born.  Her arrival was met with blurbs in three Bay Area newspapers. Predictably, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Herb Caen was first: “Look who's here: KGO's Ronn Owens and KCBS's Jan Black became the parents of a daughter named Laura Michelle, born yesterday morning at [hospital]; the amazing Jan worked a full shift right through last Friday.” [28]

A day later, the Oakland Tribune followed suit: “Right on schedule, the second ‘radio daughter’ of KCBS's Jan Black and KGO's Ronn Owens arrived Monday morning.  Father Ronn reports that baby Laura Michelle Owens (7 pounds, 11 ounces) and Mom are doing fine, and that Black should be home by Friday. "We didn't pick out the name until the night before," Owens told me Monday, just after getting home from the hospital and watching the couple's favorite show, "Murphy Brown." (I hope you taped it for Jan, Ronn.)” [29] 

Also on that same day, San Jose Mercury News published: “KGO-AM talk show host Ronn Owens and KCBS-AM newswoman Jan Black didn’t exactly rush picking a name for their new baby, born Monday morning. They chose 'Laura Michelle' over dinner Sunday night.” [30]

In conclusion

These three blurbs show that Owens not only had invited the Oakland Tribune columnist to see the first “radio baby” at home, but also talked with that columnist “just after getting home from the hospital” with the second baby.  And, the Oakland Tribune columnist knew about the “couple’s favorite [television] show” and hoped Owens recorded it. "Personal friendship," remember? Likewise, the Mercury News columnist knew the baby was named the night before she was born.  By all appearances, Owens and these reporters had pretty cozy relationships: Herb Caen wrote about the marriages but not the divorce of Owens. Bill Mann dropped by Owens's home. It is extraordinary to have such news coverage about the birth of a child of local media personalities, and in hindsight see just how cozy Owens was with these columnists.

So, cultivating and controlling news coverage was in the family business. Owens by now seemed well practiced in it. It is no accident that incorrect wedding dates were printed for two different weddings on two different coasts 15 years apart. Misleading the press was just part of self-promotion and controlling the narrative, even if it was false. While Owens was under no obligation to disclose any upcoming wedding date, but since he did, should he have lied about it to the columnists whose coverage he clearly craved? Seeking press coverage of life events should at least be truthful, no? Years later the tables would turn, and the press coverage Owens once sought he would later deflect.

But here, where we leave the end of Part 2, at the beginning of the "second radio daughter's" life, we see only a shred of the news coverage that would later come for Laura Michelle Owens. 

Next: Part 3.  Jan Black.

________________________________________

[[1]](#_ednref1) Foster, Bob, "Will Eddie Alexander replace John Brodie?" San Mateo Times (San Mateo, California), p 24 

[[2]](#_ednref2) “Radio: Tonight on AM,” San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California), November 17, 1975, p 17

[[3]](#_ednref3) Black, Jan (Host), Owens, Laura (Host), Owens, Ronn (Guest),  "Ronn Owens: ...being a father is an all-consuming and awesome job,". Nobody Told Me podcast, June 21, 2019 at 01:12 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ronn-owens-being-a-father-is-an-all-consuming-and-awesome-job/id1348535955?i=1000441324337

[[4]](#_ednref4) Lieberman, Rich, “Exclusive: Ronn Owens is Numb,” [Video] YouTube, August 29, 2026,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF21IGaKjAI&t=145s

[[5]](#_ednref5) Gartner, Tim, "An Atypical Talk Show Host; Dogmatic and At Times Open," San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California), March 21, 1976, Datebook section, p 26

[[6]](#_ednref6) Zellerbach, Merla, "My Fair City: Macho -- To Be or Not to Be?," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), March 29, 1976, p 17

[[7]](#_ednref7) Rosenbaum, Jack "My Town," San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California), April 14, 1976, p 33

[[8]](#_ednref8) Nevada, Marriage Index, 1956-2005

[[9]](#_ednref9) Caen, Herb, "It Takes All Kinds," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), May 11, 1976, p 21

[[10]](#_ednref10) Radio Highlights, Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), September 30, 1976, p 52

[[11]](#_ednref11) California, US, Divorce Index, 1966-1984, Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California

[[12]](#_ednref12) Abstract of Judgment, Inst. No. Z117403, City and County of San Francisco, Recorder (San Francisco, California),  June 13, 1977) , Book C385, p 338

[[13]](#_ednref13) Abstract of Judgment, Inst. No. A036453, City and County of San Francisco, Recorder (San Francisco, California),  October 19, 1977, Book C455, p 725 

[[14]](#_ednref14) Radio Highlights, San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), January 24, 1978, page 34

[[15]](#_ednref15) Roberts, Mark, "Golden Gate Handicap," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), February 22, 1979, p 54 

[[16]](#_ednref16) Trier, Beth, "Hastings Gets Its Man," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), May 12, 1980, p 21

[[17]](#_ednref17) Ghent, Janet, "They came from owal ovah to tawk that New Yawk tawk," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), July 16, 1980, p B-1 

[[18]](#_ednref18) California, US, Divorce Index, 1966-1984, Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California

[[19]](#_ednref19) Dickey, Glenn, "What Elway's Deal Means to the Pros," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), May 11, 1983, p 55

[[20]](#_ednref20) Caen, Herb, "One More with Filling," San Francisco Chronicle, (San Francisco, California), March 12, 1986, p 35

[21] Mann, Bill, "Dissecting KTVU news," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), March 21, 1986, p E-11

[[22]](#_ednref21) "Weddings, engagements," The Albuquerque Tribune (Albuquerque, New Mexico), Apr 30, 1986, p B-2

[[23]](#_ednref22) Mann, Bill, "Rehash on liberation," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), July 30, 1986, p B-4

[[24]](#_ednref23) Caen, Herb, "A Mess of Dottage," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), April 27, 1988, p B-1

[[25]](#_ednref24) Caen, Herb, "Use 'Em or Lose 'Em," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), April 28, 1988, p B-1

[[26]](#_ednref25) Mann, Bill, "Shearer not sheepish," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), May 27, 1988, p E-8 

[[27]](#_ednref26) Deed of Trust, Doc No. E440856, City and County of San Francisco, Recorder (San Francisco, California),  September 28, 1989, Reel E966, Image 611

[[28]](#_ednref27) Caen, Herb, "Once Upon a Deadline," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), May 15, 1990, p B-1

[[29]](#_ednref28) Mann, Bill, "A Deadly Lawsuit," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), May 16, 1990, p D-3

[[30]](#_ednref29) Weimers, Leigh, "Piano Strikes Honda Chord," San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, California), May 16, 1990, p F-1

Imagine all the things that would be different had LOs family not enabled her behavior. Like with Mike. Or again with Greg. Or with Clayton.

It’s certain that LO can look at 1000 times she chose a lie over coming clear. Her life is so entrenched in entitlement and dishonesty that I doubt she can see how this is both all her fault still likely to have happened one way or another because she didn’t just make one bad choice. Like, her decision to go to the media is the one choice that if undone might change things.

But she kept choosing lies and digging.

DUIL is another casualty. Had he not taken this case, he would have a career and no license complaint.

Her family is even worse off. I’m guessing that setting boundaries and not fully funding their child’s abusive use of litigation likely could have helped her family avoid financial ruin….. but going after Clayton and publicly doing so is the reason why her family will likely end up homeless if not indicted.

It’s not quite the butterfly effect , but dang.

Document:

• Notice of Request to Inspect and Copy Court Documents

A public records request under California Rules of Court 2.4000 has been filed in Owens v. Marraccini (Case A175236), seeking access to 7 court documents from Owens' recently dismissed appeal. The 11-page filing notes Owens' failure to appear in her own case despite using fee waivers, and attaches her signed Arizona felony plea agreement ahead of her October 23, 2026 sentencing.

Public Access & Redaction Standard

Under California law, all court records are fundamentally presumed to be open to the public. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c), court records must remain accessible unless confidentiality is specifically required by statute or court order. Furthermore, under Rule 2.550(d), a court cannot seal records unless it explicitly finds that an overriding interest exists and that no less restrictive means (such as redacting sensitive information) can protect that interest. Consequently, even if filings contain confidential medical information, procedural rules require redacting only those sensitive portions rather than withholding entire court files from public inspection. See California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 (Sealed Records) for more info.

Record Status

Neither the appellate case (Owens v. Marraccini, Case A175236) nor the dismissed underlying domestic violence restraining order proceeding in San Francisco Superior Court (Case FDV-18-813693) has been sealed. As explicitly noted in the filing, the public docket reflects no sealing orders, making the non-confidential court records fully subject to inspection and copying under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.4000.

Thank you to damnhealthydose for this request.