Nobody Told Her Perjury was a Crime!
Let the evidence (or lack thereof) speak for itself.
Once again, Laura Owens has taken to Medium to publish yet another article whining about how she is the victim in all of this, how she is being unfairly treated by the legal system for being pregnant and having a miscarriage. Enough is enough. The ruling was a direct response to the utter lack of evidence that Laura was able to provide for her pregnancy and subsequent paternity filing. She was unable to provide the proper information for the Court to obtain the evidence that she claimed to have!
All Laura Owens needed to provide was ONE ultrasound and a SINGLE doctor that can confirm that they saw and treated her. That’s it. How has that become such an obstacle for her? She claimed multiple times to having an ultrasound, the same ultrasound that she admitted to changing the date and location of in her deposition, as well as in her signed affidavit. And where is the original, un-doctored ultrasound? Nowhere to be found!
On June 17th, 2024, there was a ruling in the Laura Owens v. Clayton Echard paternity case that has garnered a lot of attention. Unsurprisingly, the ruling came back strong in favor of Clayton. With Judge Julie Mata granting Clayton’s petition for non-paternity and awarding attorney fees to Clayton. The only thing that was ‘against’ Clayton was Judge Mata did not have the authority to overturn the OOP that Laura was granted against Clayton. Laura considers this a ‘win’ by falsely claiming that it was “upheld” by Judge Mata.
Let me start off by saying, I am not in the “JFC Cult”. I am not Greg, Mike, or Clayton. Those are just Laura Owens and her attorney’s attempt to discredit and diminish the credibility of those that have been following the case. They lump everyone who questions their narrative into this group. Don’t let them gaslight into thinking that everyone following this case can’t see ‘the truth’ and is just out to destroy Laura. If you are new to this case, let the evidence (or lack thereof) speak for itself.
For the purposes of this article, I will be focusing exclusively on the Owens v. Echard paternity case in Maricopa County, AZ. As Laura has repeatedly shown herself to be an unreliable narrator — in her Medium articles as well as her testimonies under oath throughout this saga. By no means is this a comprehensive summary or timeline of all the events that have taken place with this case — and the different timelines that Laura has used to support her narrative. I have chosen to focus on the original ultrasound that Laura has been unable to provide. To the best of my ability, I will back my statements up with the evidence from the court filings and/or hearings obtained from Maricopa County. Court filings are available here.
The stream of the trial on June 10, 2024 is available here.
BACKGROUND
This saga began in May 2023, when Laura reached out to Clayton on LinkedIn to be her realtor for investment properties that she was looking to purchase. On May 20, 2023, Clayton invited Laura over and she performed oral sex on him twice and there was grinding taking place. The next morning (May 21, 2023), they went to look at houses together. Afterwards, Clayton told her that he had crossed a professional boundary and it shouldn’t have happened. Laura immediately bursts into tears.
In between May 21st and May 25th, there is some drama regarding Clayton failing to submit offers on two houses. Clayton told Laura that he had submitted the offers, when he hadn’t. He admitted to lying to Laura about the offers in his deposition in January 2024. Laura uses this to discredit Clayton’s testimony regarding the other matters in this filing.
On May 25, 2023, Laura texts Clayton and appears to hint that she might be pregnant as she had felt some of his fluids “down there” from their grinding. By this point, she had sent enough text messages to Clayton that he told her he was considering filing a police report and asks her to leave him alone.
The following are excerpts from the 1/25/24 “Reply to Petitioner’s Response to Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 26” filing by Clayton’s attorneys:
On June 1, 2023, Laura goes to Banner Health for a urine pregnancy test, which is positive. Note: Urine pregnancy test checks for the presence of a hormone hCG, which is generally an indicator of pregnancy. This is the only documented evidence that supports Laura’s pregnancy claim. That’s why Laura continuously offers to give her Patient Portal login information to anyone who needs ‘proof’. That is all she has in terms of medical evidence.
Without going down a rabbit hole or conspiracy, there are alternative ways to get hCG — which could result in a positive result in a urine and blood pregnancy test. In order to confirm pregnancy as the cause of the elevated hCG level, the next step would be getting an ultrasound or sonogram. Good news: Laura says she went to Planned Parenthood and got an ultrasound!
VISITS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD
In her deposition on March 1, 2024 and her signed affidavit, Laura states that she went to Planned Parenthood (PPH) on Sunday, July 2nd, 2023 while she was in California. This is where she says that she got an ultrasound, which she admitted to altering the date (July 2nd to July 7th) and the location of the ultrasound (Planned Parenthood to SMIL). Importantly, this ultrasound shows TWO sacs. This is the same ultrasound that Laura has been unable to provide the original, un-doctored version or the location where it was obtained for Clayton’s team to verify. This ultrasound is a KEY piece of evidence in this paternity filing for Laura, as this ultrasound showed two sacs, indicating twins. In absence of the ultrasound or blood tests that showed a trend of higher than normal hCG levels, there is no way for Laura to know she was expecting twins.
The following is an excerpt from Laura’s signed affidavit on 4/16/24 that was included in the “Petitioner’s Expert Disclosure Statement”:
In one of her articles, Laura cites her signing a HIPAA waiver seemingly to show how she ‘allowed’ Clayton’s teams access to her medical records — as if Clayton’s team had access to these records and simply did not obtain them. What Laura fails to mention is how her story regarding her PPH visit changed throughout the proceedings.
On March 1, 2024, during her deposition, Laura said that she went to a PPH in Mission Viejo, CA, anonymously. Clayton’s expert, Dr. Deans, was a former medical director of PPH and confirmed that PPH requires a name, date of birth, and piece of identification that confirms both. This is where she says she obtained the ultrasound that she changed.
The following are excerpts from the March 1, 2024 deposition of Laura Owens, which were included as part of Exhibit 1 of “Motion for Relief and Judgment Based on Fraud” filed on March 25, 2024:
In Exhibit 1 in “Reply to Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud”, the response that Clayton’s team received from PPH in Orange County indicated that Laura did have an appointment scheduled for 7/2/23, which was cancelled. They also indicated that the ultrasound image provided was not consistent with the ultrasound images generated by their practice.
In her testimony on June 10th, 2024, at the trial, Laura revised her story saying that she visited a different PPH facility that was in Los Angeles, CA, under a different name. She had not previously disclosed this location to the Court or Clayton’s legal team. This revised testimony ignores glaring holes: PPH in Los Angeles are closed on Sundays and the ID that would match the name Laura’s used that is required to attend the appointment. Neither side addressed the form of ID.
During the testimony of Laura’s medical expert, Dr. Medchill, Judge Mata asked if he had reviewed any of Laura’s records from PPH, which he did not. Laura did not even provide these PPH records to her own expert. Judge Mata asked an additional question about whether or not PPH would have the authority/ability to prescribe Laura fertility drugs, which he said they did [have the authority].
THE PATERNITY FILING
On August 1, 2023, Laura filed a paternity petition in Maricopa County, claiming that Clayton was the father of her unborn TWINS. Twins as in TWO, DOS, DEUX babies. Something that her and her lawyer have seemingly hoped would miraculously be forgotten if they pick their wording right.
Now how could Laura have possibly known that she had to file a paternity case for two unborn children when the ONLY medical documentation she has was a positive urine pregnancy test at Banner Health on June 1, 2023. Beyond that point, Laura has failed to provide any further (non-doctored) medical evidence to support her pregnancy — let alone any evidence that supports twins.
Later, Laura would say that the only reason that she filed the paternity claim was so the court would order Clayton to take a paternity test. Emails would later show that Clayton was not the one that was avoiding the paternity test, rather Laura was the one with the stipulations.
Laura’s visit notes for a virtual appointment on 10/17/23 with the Barrow Epilepsy & Brain Injury Center notes that Laura was 22 weeks pregnant with boy/girl twins, which was included on page 45 of “Petitioner’s Expert Disclosure Statement” submitted to the Court. No evidence has been provided to support this statement regarding the genders.
RULING RESPONSE
The paternity case finally came to an end with Judge Mata’s ruling issued on June 17th, 2024. As expected Laura and her attorney (her 3rd in this paternity case) have NOT handled defeat well — attempting to claim the Judge was biased because a spectator indicated that Judge Mata’s father was at the trial. Last time I checked, a woman is completely capable of forming her own opinion and ruling based on the evidence and testimony, independent of her father!
Laura has once against taken to Medium to publish a narrative that is glaring false and not a true reflection of the facts and evidence (or lack thereof) at the heart of this case. Medium has continuously taken down any rebuttals that have been posted, but allow for Laura’s to remain, despite the inaccuracies and copyright infringement. It could appear that Laura is doing her best to pump out articles so they pop up rather than the news articles that have been reporting on the case.
With one of her latest articles, Laura has misrepresented the facts presented in Mata’s ruling to make it seem like she is being unfairly punished and attacked for simply filing a paternity petition and miscarrying. Laura attempts to garner attention and public outcry by saying that it will set a precedent for other women who file paternity petitions.
The ruling was a direct response to the utter lack of evidence that Laura was able to provide for her pregnancy and subsequent paternity filing. She was unable to provide the proper information for the Court to obtain the evidence that she claimed she had! The only verifiable medical evidence to support her pregnancy was her visit to Banner Health on 6/1/23 for a urine pregnancy test, which is only testing for an elevated level of hCG.
Her byline says the following:
“I filed a paternity case and tried to dismiss it after suffering a miscarriage. Now, nearly six months after my Motion was denied, the family court judge is sending my case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for Review.”
Why she is being referred: Review of her actions pursuant to A.R.S § 13–2702 and A.R.S § 13–2809 — which relate to Perjury and Tampering of Evidence, respectively.
I filed a paternity case and tried to dismiss it after suffering a miscarriage.
False. Per her own testimony on June 10th, 2024, Laura filed the “Petition for Mediation” on 10/18/23 for the purpose of telling Clayton that she was no longer pregnant. However, when that petition was denied by the Court, Laura made no further action to dismiss the paternity case until 12/28/23.
In her Petition for Mediation, Laura makes no mention of wanting to discuss the status of her pregnancy at that point, rather mentioning how he “refuses to respond to emails, making it impossible to make a paren[ting plan]”.
After the mediation was denied, Laura did not use any of the three separate court appearances (which are available online) where she saw Clayton, on 10/24, 10/25, or 11/2, to tell him that she was no longer pregnant.
On October 24, 2023, in the 1st part of Clayton’s IAH Hearing, Laura asked Judge Gialketsis if she could show Clayton that “I am in fact pregnant”, which was promptly denied. Then on November 2, 2023, in the 2nd part of the IAH hearing, Laura testified, under oath, that she was 24 weeks and “100% pregnant”.
In fact, Laura did not file a motion to dismiss until 12/28/23 (link to Laura’s filing), nearly 2 weeks after Clayton’s attorney filed the “Motion for Leave to Amend Respondent’s Response to Petition to Establish Paternity” on 12/12/23, requesting for the Court to issue an order declaring that [Clayton] was not the natural father.
Her lawyer loves to argue that Clayton’s lawyer didn’t even come on until December and started filing things when the case was placed on the inactive calendar. However, during those early weeks in December, Laura was still proclaiming she had been or still was pregnant (referring to the pregnancy in ambiguous terms that didn’t indicate present or past tense), which indicated to Clayton that he would never be able to say that Laura wasn’t pregnant without being threatened with legal action.
The following is an excerpt from the Family Court Docket for FC2023–052114:
In the ruling, the court included the following in the Findings of Fact:
Petitioner testified that on October 18, 2023, she was aware the alleged pregnancies were not viable and filed the Request for Pre-Decree Mediation in the hopes that at mediation she could tell the Respondent that the pregnancy was no longer viable.
Upon denial of her Request, however, she did not file a Motion to Dismiss or make other arrangements to advise Respondent of the development.
The Court finds this testimony uncredible and a misuse of judicial resources.
The Court finds it is impossible to determine the date of any alleged miscarriage, not because it is impossible, but rather because she failed to seek even a minimal level of care for her high-risk condition. Failure to demonstrate confirmation of ongoing pregnancy is a purposeful way to ensure Respondent would not be able to determine if she was pregnant and if so, for how long the pregnancy lasted.
Now, nearly six months after my motion was denied, the family court judge is sending my case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for Review.
She fails to mention WHY she is being reported to the Maricopa County Attorney — for perjury and tampering with physical evidence. These are actions that Laura took after filing the paternity petition that followed a pattern of behavior that was uncovered. Even independent of this pattern of behavior, she lied under oath (multiple times, in front of 2+ judges) and doctored evidence (that she has admitted to), that support the case being sent for review. Given these conditions, Laura has repeatedly shown that she is uncredible as a witness and little, if any, evidence obtained from the 3rd party providers have backed up her statements.
For someone like Laura, who loves to use her legal ‘wins’ against Mike Marraccini and Greg Gillespie as proof of her stories, this ruling comes as a major blow. When the rulings are in her favor, they are right but when they are wrong, she screams ‘unfair’ and ‘corrupt’. This ruling feels like justice for Clayton, but Laura’s articles show that the fight is far from over.
