Video Description:

On January 14, 2026, a concerned citizen and follower of the Laura Owens saga calls the Scottsdale Police in regard to a December 24, 2025 Medium blog Laura had posted. Officer Dunn of the Scottsdale Police speaks with the caller about their concerns, then conducts a Welfare check on Laura at her Scottsdale home. Laura's mother, Jan Black, tells the officer people are harassing them, labeling the concerned caller a "stalker", and call the welfare checks a "waste of police resources." She also criticizes the act of making false statements to the police. Officer Dunn gives Laura a Cricis/Mental Health resource card and ends the check.

While Laura expresses a strong desire to live for her family and her animal rescue work in this blog post, she repeatedly emphasizes how difficult, precarious, and overwhelming the struggle to survive has become:

The Struggle to Live: She describes feeling "stranded between two realities that both feel impossible: I cannot keep living like this, and I do not yet know how to stop."

Wanting vs. Being Able to Stay: She writes that she is "someone who understands, slowly and unwillingly, that wanting to stay and being able to stay are not always the same thing — and who cannot bear the thought that the people left behind might ever doubt how hard she tried..."

Medical Danger: She acknowledges the constant threat to her life, writing, "I know that this illness will kill me if it continues..." and noting that she is playing with "organ failure and sudden death."

Overall Burden: She summarizes her current state by writing, "Basically, I'm stuck. Truly, it is a living hell," and concludes with, "I never should have had to suffer this much just to earn the right to keep living."

Despite the subjects' anger over public records being accessed and shared, this footage is entirely public and subject to FOIA. Notably, Scottsdale Police slightly blurred the video - a courtesy never extended in any other footage obtained from their department - indicating someone proactively stepped in to obscure a record they knew they couldn't legally keep private.

December 24, 2025 blog post: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/wp-co...

Call for Service: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/wp-co...

These videos have been obtained and shared publicly with direct approval from the Scottsdale Police Department.A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 57(a) Availability of Information. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the state bar file, the record maintained by the disciplinary clerk, and all proceedings shall be open to the public(b) Exceptions to Availability of Information. Notwithstanding other provisions of these rules, including Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, the following do not become public:14. Previous recordings and written transcripts of audio and video witness interviews or statements, unless offered or admitted as exhibits in formal proceedings.

"There Should Be No Secret Public Records - The public should be able to easily discover the existence and the nature of public records and the existence to which data are accessible to persons outside of the government."- The Bureau of Justice Assistance (bja.ojp.gov)

Documents:

• Respondent State Bar of Arizona's Response to Petitioner's Petition for Special Action
  • Respondent State Bar of Arizona's Appendix 1
  • Respondent State Bar of Arizona's Appendix 2
• Certificate of Compliance
• Certificate of Service - Special Action
• Certificate of Service - Appendix

Response TL;DR

The State Bar of Arizona (Jim Lee) filed a formal response asking the Arizona Supreme Court to decline hearing an emergency appeal ("special action") filed by attorney David Gingras. The Bar argues that Gingras should wait for the full disciplinary process to finish before appealing. Substantively, the Bar contends that while attorneys keep free speech rights, those rights are limited when practicing law, meaning attorneys can be disciplined for making disparaging, reckless, or unprofessional public attacks against a judge during an active case. The Bar also argues that Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law does not shield lawyers from bar disciplinary proceedings.

Comprehensive Summary

1. Case Background

• The Allegations: The State Bar of Arizona brought disciplinary charges against lawyer David S. Gingras. The charges stem from public, disparaging comments Gingras made about Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Julie Mata while representing a client in an active case. These comments were made in court filings, online postings, and a podcast.
• Prior Rulings by the Judge: Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) Lisa A. VandenBerg previously made two key rulings:
  1. Partial Judgment on the Pleadings: Granted in part for the Bar, ruling that Gingras violated ethical rules by making disparaging comments about the judge that were not necessary to advance his client's case.
  2. Anti-SLAPP Motion: Denied Gingras' motion to dismiss under Arizona's anti-SLAPP statute, ruling he failed to show that applying the statute wouldn't improperly restrict the Court's authority over attorney discipline.

2. The Procedural Argument: Why the Supreme Court Should Reject the Appeal Now

The State Bar argues that the Arizona Supreme Court should decline to take up Gingras’ special action at this time for several procedural reasons:

• Equal Remedy on Normal Appeal: Gingras does not need emergency Supreme Court intervention right now. He can appeal all issues through normal channels once the full hearing on the remaining misconduct charges is completed.
• Disputed Facts: Gingras claims key facts are in dispute. The Bar notes that special actions are meant for pure legal questions, not for resolving factual disputes.
• Efficiency: Deciding the appeal now will not fully end the lawsuit because other charges against Gingras (such as alleged court order violations and frivolous appeals) still must go before a hearing panel regardless.

3. The Constitutional & Ethics Argument: Free Speech vs. Attorney Standards

Gingras argued that disciplining him for his comments violates his First Amendment and state constitutional free speech rights. The State Bar counters with the following legal principles:

• Attorneys Face Legal Restrictions: While lawyers retain free speech rights, courts across the U.S. have consistently held that attorneys' speech can be restricted while practicing law.
• Protecting Public Trust: Unwarranted, derogatory, or reckless attacks on a judge’s integrity by a lawyer erode public confidence in the judicial system.
• Professional Standards: Upon admission to the practice of law, attorneys take an oath and agree to ethical standards requiring them to maintain respect for courts, avoid unprofessional conduct, and remain civil.
• Proper Avenues for Criticism: If a judge makes an incorrect ruling or acts improperly, an attorney’s duty to their client is to file an appeal, ask for reconsideration, or submit a formal disciplinary complaint - not to post unprofessional insults or make reckless claims on public forums.

4. The Anti-SLAPP Statute Argument

Gingras tried to use Arizona's anti-SLAPP law ($\text{A.R.S. } \S\ 12\text{-}751$), which protects citizens from retaliatory lawsuits designed to silence free speech, to throw out the Bar’s complaint. The Bar asserts this law does not apply here:

• Constitutional Separation of Powers: The Arizona Supreme Court has ultimate, constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law. Applying a legislative anti-SLAPP statute to attorney disciplinary proceedings impermissibly interferes with the judiciary's power to enforce professional standards.
• Statutory Requirement Not Met: Anti-SLAPP laws require the lawful exercise of constitutional rights. Because attorneys do not have a constitutional right to engage in unprofessional, reckless attacks on judges during active litigation, Gingras cannot claim protection under the statute.

Video Description

Copy of the publicly available United Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona 341 Meeting of Creditors, Bankruptcy Petition #: 2:26-bk-05144-MCW | Ronn Owens + Elizbeth Naylor (Jan Black) from August 6, 2026.

Judge Wanslee dismissed Ronn & Jan's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case with prejudice, barring them from filing for any bankruptcy for a period of 2 years beginning August 6, 2026.

Hearing Summary

Overview & Appearances:
Debtors: Ronn Owens and Jan Black (pro se) - appearing virtually
DOJ Attorney: Jennifer Giaimo appeared for the U.S. Trustee - appearing in person
Judge: The Honorable Judge Wanslee - appearing in person

At the Chapter 11 bankruptcy dismissal hearing on August 6, 2026, Judge Wanslee granted a case dismissal with prejudice along with a two-year bar on refiling. Attorney Jennifer Giaimo characterized the case as a severe bad faith filing that would yield no recoverable assets, arguing the two-year bar was necessary to protect GoFundMe donors attempting to recover funds and to allow sufficient time for home foreclosure proceedings.

While debtor Jan agreed to the two-year ban and noted ongoing attempts to negotiate out-of-court settlements with lenders, she pushed back on the bad faith classification - attributing their procedural issues to the difficulty of navigating Chapter 11 pro se and maintaining that they made no promises to donors. Judge Wanslee finalized the ruling via a Minute Entry before adjourning the hearing.

Permission obtained by the AZ Bankruptcy Court to post this public recording.

Parents of Laura Owens (Scottsdale, AZ)

📄 Bankruptcy Documents: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/docum...

A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 57
(a) Availability of Information. State bar files, disciplinary clerk records, and all proceedings shall be open to the public.
(b) Exceptions: 14. Previous recordings/transcripts of audio/video witness interviews do not become public unless admitted as exhibits in formal proceedings.

"There Should Be No Secret Public Records - The public should be able to easily discover the existence and nature of public records..." — Bureau of Justice Assistance

Today, Ronn & Jan's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice, barring them from filing for any type of bankruptcy for 2 years. The 2 year period begins today, August 6, 2026.

Recap

*This recap focuses on the primary highlights rather than a comprehensive account, covering the key takeaways without extra detail.*

Hearing Date: August 6, 2026 @ 2:30PM PST

Part 1: Hearing Opening & Arguments

• Hearing Call & Appearances:

  • The Ch. 11 BK Dismissal Hearing opened. Ronn & Jan appeared virtually, while Jennifer Giaimo (QJ) attended in person.

• Justification for Bar:

  • Judge Wanslee asked why a 2-year refiling bar was necessary. Jennifer Giaimo noted the filing was made in bad faith and required a sufficient deterrent.

• Asset Assessment:

  • Jennifer Giaimo reiterated that converting the case to another chapter would not yield any assets.

• Protecting Donors:

  • It was stated that steps needed to be taken to ensure GoFundMe donors had time to attempt to recover their funds if they chose to do so.

• Setting the Ban Duration:

  • Judge Wanslee stated that a 2-year bar seemed adequate to allow for the foreclosure of the home.

• Assessment of Conduct:

  • Jennifer Giaimo stated that this was one of the worst cases of bad faith filings she had ever seen.

• Debtor Response to 2-Year Ban:

  • When asked her stance on the 2-year ban, Jan stated she agreed with it, but wanted it on the record that they did not agree they acted in bad faith, adding that the Chapter 11 rules and attempting to follow them pro se was "hard."

Part 2: GoFundMe Dispute & Conclusion

• Out-of-Court Settlement Claims:

  • Jan stated they were trying to reach an agreement with lenders and creditors outside of the bankruptcy proceedings.

• GoFundMe Clarification:

  • Jan stated they never promised GoFundMe donors anything.

• Creditor Stance on GoFundMe:

  • Jennifer Giaimo stated she did not want to get into a back-and-forth argument with the debtors over the GoFundMe funds.

• Formal Ruling:

  • Judge Wanslee granted the dismissal with prejudice + 2 year bar for filing.
  • It was noted that a Minute Entry would serve as the formal dismissal order.

• Closing Remarks:

  • Jan thanked Judge Wanslee for allowing them to appear virtually due to the extreme heat.

• Adjournment:

  • With no further comments, the hearing was adjourned.

"A federal bankruptcy official says a review of bank records found that much of the roughly $132,000 raised through a GoFundMe campaign for former Bay Area radio host Ronn Owens went toward mortgage payments, family businesses and other expenses.
The U.S. Trustee’s Office said in a court filing Monday that it reviewed 18 months of records from eight bank accounts belonging to Owens and his wife, Elizabeth Ann Naylor, who is professionally known as former KCBS host Jan Black.

Across those accounts, the couple spent $17,209 on health care and pharmacy costs during the period reviewed, according to the filing. During the period when the fundraiser proceeds were deposited, they made more than $61,000 in mortgage payments and contributed $44,375 to limited liability companies they controlled.

The records also showed consumer credit card payments, transfers to the couple’s adult daughters, retail purchases, food delivery, restaurant charges, subscriptions and travel expenses, the filing said.
The trustee, the Justice Department agency that monitors bankruptcy cases for misconduct and compliance with federal law, said the spending presented “a serious question whether donors received what they were promised,” but did not conclude that they broke the law.

Owens and Naylor disputed the assertions in the filing, according to the document. They have agreed to dismissal of their Chapter 11 case with a two-year prohibition on filing another bankruptcy petition, the trustee said.

The GoFundMe campaign did not say donations would be reserved exclusively for medical bills.
The fundraiser highlighted Owens’ 23-year struggle with Parkinson’s disease, four bouts with cancer and serious heart problems. It said those illnesses had taken a toll “both physically and financially” and that donations would help Owens and his family “navigate this difficult time.”

The campaign, launched Dec. 31, 2024, had collected more than $137,000 from about 1,600 donors as of Monday.

During a July 16 meeting of creditors, Naylor attributed inaccuracies in the couple’s earlier bankruptcy filings to confusion about what the forms required.

“A lot of this was lack of understanding of what was actually being asked and what was necessary to file,” she said after Jennifer A. Giaimo, an attorney with the U.S. Trustee’s Office, questioned her about differences between the couple’s earlier sworn disclosures and recent amendments.

Naylor also maintained that the GoFundMe campaign was intended to help with the family’s broader financial difficulties, rather than solely to pay Owens’ medical bills.

“I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that donors would know or expect that GoFundMe money is being used to pay Macy’s credit card bills,” Giaimo said.

Owens was a defining voice of Bay Area talk radio during nearly five decades at KGO. He retired in 2021, shortly before the station abandoned its news-talk format.

The Owens family’s financial and legal affairshave also been closely tracked by an online community supporting former “Bachelor” star Clayton Echard, who was previously involved in litigation with the couple’s daughter.

Owens and Naylor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in Arizona in August 2025, reporting approximately $2.3 million in liabilities. 

That case was dismissed in January after they failed to comply with recommendations from the Chapter 13 trustee, according to court records cited in Monday’s filing.

They filed the current Chapter 11 case on May 22, less than four months later. A judge subsequently denied their request to extend the automatic bankruptcy stay, which had temporarily protected them from certain creditor actions.

The U.S. Trustee’s Office initially sought dismissal of the second case with a one-year bar on refiling. After reviewing the couple’s bank records and amended financial statements, the request was increased to two years.

The filing also identified numerous inconsistencies among the couple’s sworn disclosures in the two cases.

“Across three sets of schedules … the Debtors have sworn to statements that cannot all be true,” the trustee wrote.

The couple attributed at least some of the problems to prior counsel and Owens’ health, according to the government’s filing. 

The trustee acknowledged that the amendments could be cited as evidence that the couple intended to correct errors rather than conceal information, but maintained that the discrepancies were serious.

Despite those concerns, the trustee recommended dismissing the case rather than converting it to a Chapter 7 liquidation. The filing said there appeared to be no meaningful pool of assets that a trustee could sell to repay unsecured creditors.

The filing also said the GoFundMe proceeds had been fully spent and that the reviewed accounts held only nominal balances. Any claims involving the solicitation or use of the donations would have to be pursued outside bankruptcy by donors or GoFundMe, the trustee said.

The trustee asked the court to find that the couple filed the case in bad faith and prohibit either of them from seeking bankruptcy protection for two years. That would allow lenders and other creditors to pursue foreclosure, lawsuits and other collection efforts without another bankruptcy filing.
A hearing on the request is scheduled for Thursday."

Document

• United States Trustee's Supplemental Response to Debtors' Motion to Dismiss

TL;DR

DOJ Trial Attorney Jennifer Giaimo (representing the U.S. Trustee) filed a response agreeing that Elizabeth Ann Naylor and Ronald Stephen Owens’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy should be dismissed rather than converted to Chapter 7, but with prejudice and a 2-year bar on refiling. Giaimo found massive discrepancies in their filings, $132k+ in GoFundMe money spent largely on lifestyle expenses instead of medical care, and no liquidation value for creditors. The Debtors have agreed to the dismissal and the 2-year refiling ban (though they dispute Giaimo's factual allegations).

Breakdown & Summary of Findings

1. The Strategy: Dismissal over Chapter 7 Conversion

• No Assets to Liquidate: Converting to Chapter 7 would yield nothing for creditors. Their residence has over $1.9M in liens against a ~$1.5M value. The horses cost $38k+ over 18 months to feed/board, wiping out any potential proceeds from selling the single valuable pony.
• Speed for Creditors: Dismissal allows creditors (including mortgage lenders and credit card companies like Chase) to immediately resume foreclosures, lawsuits, and garnishments.
• The 2-Year Bar: Because the Debtors are serial filers using bankruptcy to stop imminent sales, Giaimo is seeking a 2-year bar to prevent them from refiling on the eve of a foreclosure.

2. Wild Filing Discrepancies

Giaimo pointed out multiple sworn statements across their Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 filings that logically cannot all be true:

• Home Ownership: Sworn at 50%, then 100%, then back to 50%.
• Unsecured Debt: Listed at $511k, then $0, then jump-cut to $729k.
• Animals: Listed as 7 retired horses + 1 dog valued at $1,100 total, until a recent amendment listed an LLC interest at $62k, a single pony at $60k, and an undisclosed 12-month lease of said pony.
• Hidden Income & Assets: Unreported business income ($40k in '24, $81k in '25), previously undisclosed cashier's checks ($7,000), Schwab accounts, and an LLC interest (Good Luck Shop, LLC).
• Insider Transfers: Over $19k in gifts to daughter Laura and $21k+ paid on behalf of daughter Sarah were concealed until recent amendments.

3. The GoFundMe Details

• Total Collected: ~$132,480 total ($109k+ in January 2025 alone) solicited based on Owens's Parkinson's, cancer, and heart conditions.
• Where It Went: Out of all 8 Bank of America accounts over 18 months, only 2.7% ($17,209) went toward medical/pharmacy expenses.
• Discretionary Spending: Over $191k was spent on non-medical items, including $61k+ in mortgage payments, credit cards, $44k into their LLCs, transfers to daughters, travel, and over $1,200/month in food delivery.
• Giaimo's Stance: Jennifer notes this raises massive red flags regarding whether donors were defrauded, but states that bankruptcy court can't recover those funds for donors - GoFundMe or individual donors would need to sue outside of bankruptcy court.

4. Current Case Status

• Debtors agreed to the 2-year refiling ban to get the case dismissed, though they dispute Giaimo's factual assertions.
• The court will consider the final dismissal order at the continued hearing on August 6, 2026.

Thank you to CM for the document.

Stephani Young is working on Episode 16 of Love Trapped: Owens v Echard and wants to hear from YOU! Head on over to her Instagram and ask away!

Document:

• BK Claim # 14: Proof of Claim (POC) - US Bank Trust Company (Select Portfolio Services)

TL;DR

This filing is a formal Proof of Claim (Official Form 410) submitted in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. U.S. Bank Trust Company (acting as trustee for COLT 2024-3 Mortgage Loan Trust) is claiming $1,753,385.12 secured by a primary residence mortgage on property in Scottsdale, Arizona. The claim includes $178,956.69 in overdue payments and fees needed to bring the mortgage current.

*If a company wants to get paid, they have to file a formal Proof of Claim with the court. If they don't, they generally forfeit their right to receive any money when the funds are handed out.*

Filing Summary

1. Who is the Creditor?

• Secured Creditor / Claimant: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (solely as trustee for COLT 2024-3 Mortgage Loan Trust).
• Loan Servicer / Contact: Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) based in Salt Lake City, Utah, handling notices and payments.
• Filing Agent: Submitted by legal representative Mary Vitartas of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC on June 29, 2026.

2. Who are the Debtors & Case Details?

• Debtors: Elizabeth Ann Naylor and Ronald Stephen Owens.
• Bankruptcy Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.
• Case Type: Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
• Case Number: 2:26-bk-05144-MCW.

3. What Amount is Owed?

• Total Secured Claim Amount: $1,753,385.12.
• Prepetition Arrearage (Amount to Cure Default): $178,956.69.
• Interest Rate: Fixed at 8.000% per annum.
• Regular Monthly Payment: $12,392.05 ($11,740.23 principal & interest, plus $651.82 escrow).

4. Why is it Owed?

• Basis of Claim: Money loaned via a fixed-rate promissory note secured by a Deed of Trust.
• Property Collateral: Ronn & Jan's Scottsdale home.
• Loan History & Background:
  • The original loan of $1,600,000.00 was issued on April 19, 2024, by Foundation Funding Corporation, with Ion Mortgage and Lending LLC listed as the mortgage broker and Al Harvey named as the loan originator.
  • The borrowers defaulted on payments starting in 2025, triggering accrued delinquent interest ($154,822.04), principal arrearages ($16,777.42), legal fees, property valuation/inspection fees, and advanced tax and insurance payments.

What makes this default so unusually fast comes down to how brutal a high-interest, multi-million-dollar loan can be. Normally, standard homeowners with a typical mortgage who fall on hard times might struggle for years - dipping into savings or working out a plan with the ban - before facing foreclosure. But here, Ronn & Jan took out a massive $1.6 million loan in April 2024 with a high 8% interest rate. Because the monthly bill was over $12,000, falling behind for just a single year meant they suddenly owed over $154,000 just in missed interest payments alone. The debt piled up so fast that normal ways to catch up weren't an option, putting them in a financial hole much faster than a normal homeowner would ever see.

Documents:

CA-26-0236-SA

• July 22:
  • Petition for Special Action (Appellate)
  • Appendix to Petition for Special Action (Appellate) Volume 1
  • Appendix to Petition for Special Action (Appellate) Volume 2
  • Appendix to Petition for Special Action (Appellate) Volume 3
  • Supporting Document – Order In Re Motion for Partial Judgement on the Pleadings
  • Supporting Document – Order Re Motion to Dismiss

Petition for Special Action TL;DR

Attorney David S. Gingras (represented by Marc J. Randazza) has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a special action appeal. He is challenging lower rulings by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) in a State Bar of Arizona disciplinary proceeding. The lower court held that attorneys surrender or face diminished First Amendment and state constitutional free speech protections upon admission to the Bar, allowing discipline even for truthful public criticism of a judge. Gingras argues that under controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada), lawyers retain full First Amendment rights, truth is an absolute defense, and Arizona’s newly expanded anti-SLAPP statute (A.R.S. § 12-751) applies to bar disciplinary actions. He is asking the court to reverse the PDJ's rulings and reassign the case to a different judge upon remand.

Summary

1. Background & Context

• Parties: David S. Gingras (Petitioner) v. State Bar of Arizona (Respondent), filed in the Arizona Supreme Court (Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge No. PDJ2026-9010) on July 22, 2026.
• Underlying Dispute: The disciplinary action stems from Gingras’s representation of a client in a high-profile Maricopa County family court case (Laura Owens v. Clayton Echard). Following an adverse ruling, Gingras engaged in public criticism of the trial judge, filed a Notice of Change of Judge for Cause alleging the judge relied on extrajudicial facts, and communicated with law enforcement and third parties.
• State Bar Charges: The State Bar brought disciplinary charges alleging Gingras's public criticisms violated the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. Procedural Posture & Decisions Below

• Judgment on the Pleadings: The Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) granted partial judgment on the pleadings for the State Bar, ruling that First Amendment and state constitutional free speech defenses fail as a matter of law in attorney discipline, asserting that lawyers agree to restrictions on their speech rights upon admission to the Bar.
• Anti-SLAPP Ruling: The PDJ also denied Gingras's motion to dismiss under Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law (A.R.S. § 12-751), ruling that applying anti-SLAPP protections to bar discipline would violate the separation of powers by unduly hampering the judiciary’s authority to regulate lawyers.

3. Key Legal Arguments Raised by Petitioner

• First Amendment & Supreme Court Precedent: Gingras argues that long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Baird, Bates, Gentile, and Chiles v. Salazar) firmly establishes that attorneys do not surrender their First Amendment rights upon bar admission. Diminished protection applies only in narrow contexts like attorney advertising or confidential discovery material, neither of which applies here.
• Truth is an Absolute Defense: Under the proper constitutional framework, truth is a defense against charges of impugning a judge’s integrity. Judgment on the pleadings was improper because Gingras disputed the falsity of his statements in his Answer, creating material factual disputes.
• Arizona "Speak Freely" Clause: The PDJ erred by completely ignoring Gingras’s defense under Article II, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, which often affords broader protection for speech than the U.S. Constitution.
• Applicability of Anti-SLAPP Law (A.R.S. § 12-751): The newly expanded anti-SLAPP statute explicitly applies to regulatory/administrative actions by state actors, which includes the Bar. Gingras contends that because the judiciary lacks constitutional power to punish protected speech, applying anti-SLAPP to dismiss meritless disciplinary charges does not infringe on judicial power or separation of powers.
• Reassignment on Remand: Gingras requests that if the decision is reversed, the case be reassigned to a different judge to avoid the appearance or risk of subconscious bias regarding previously rejected constitutional positions.

Documents:

• Status Report Re: Petition for Special Action (David Gingras)
• Clarification Re: PDJ Order Issued June 22, 2026 (Judge VandenBerg)
• Supreme Court Case #CV-26-0236-SA Docket

TL;DR

Before filing his Supreme Court Special Action (CV-26-0236-SA), David Gingras submitted a Status Report to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) announcing his intent to appeal two key rulings - including an anti-SLAPP decision holding that lawyers lack the same free speech rights as non-lawyers - and requested a pause on disciplinary proceedings. In response, the PDJ clarified that Gingras must prove to the PDJ court that the Supreme Court petition was successfully filed before any schedule will be paused. Gingras then formally docketed the petition alongside a 3-volume exhibit package from the Owens v. Echard litigation, prompting the Supreme Court to issue its initial administrative order.

Summary

1. PDJ Level: Gingras Status Report Re: Petition for Special Action (Filed July 22, 2026)

• Context & Core Argument: Gingras notified Presiding Disciplinary Judge Lisa VandenBerg that he was filing an immediate Supreme Court Special Action. He is challenging two specific PDJ rulings: the June 22, 2026 order denying anti-SLAPP protection (A.R.S. § 12-751) and an April 14, 2026 order granting partial judgment against him.
• The Legal Error Alleged: Gingras asserts both PDJ rulings rest on the same flawed conclusion: that attorneys do not enjoy the same First Amendment free speech rights as non-lawyers.
• Procedural Request: Under updated Special Action rules, the PDJ judge is no longer named as a respondent. Gingras filed this notice to request that the PDJ hold off on issuing a new hearing schedule while the Supreme Court reviews the petition.

2. PDJ Level: PDJ Clarification Re: June 22 Order (Filed July 22, 2026)

• Court's Response: Judge VandenBerg acknowledged the Status Report but issued a formal clarification regarding the procedural timeline.
• Proof Required: The PDJ stated that Gingras cannot simply state an intent to file; he has an affirmative obligation to submit proof into the PDJ record showing that a timely Supreme Court petition was successfully filed. Without that proof, the PDJ will move forward with scheduling the disciplinary case.

3. Supreme Court: Petition for Special Action & Appendices (Filed July 22, 2026)

• The Petition (CV-26-0236-SA): Filed by attorney Marc Randazza, asking the state's highest court to intervene immediately to dismiss or stay the disciplinary prosecution on free speech, anti-SLAPP, and due process grounds.
• Appendices (Vols. 1, 2a, & 3): Nineteen total exhibits featuring court records, transcripts, orders, and filings from the underlying Owens v. Echard litigation to refute the Bar's charges and provide factual context.
• Supreme Court Order: The initial administrative entry officially docketing the civil special action and establishing the procedural timeline for the State Bar's response.

We will share documents from the Supreme Court case as they become available.