As yet another plea deal deadline approaches, along with developments in the family court matter with Mike, I can’t help but wonder if the outcome of Mike’s case will influence whatever last minute decision Laura makes on the 28th of this month.

I’ve long ago given up trying to expect rational or logical thinking from LO, so even though it seems absurd that her decision on the plea deal would be based on anything other than her desire to not spend years in jail, we can’t discount the possibility that her primary motivations lie elsewhere.

I’m far from the first person to point this out, but it’s more than clear that Laura’s obsession with Mike is leagues above the fixation she had on Greg and Clayton and the other victims. Mike may not have been the first, and he’s wasn’t the most wealthy or high profile like Victim 0 and Clayton, but the one metric by which he surpasses them all by a wide margin is the one that Laura probably values most:

He stayed with her the longest.

With both Greg and Clayton, we’ve seen how Laura would endlessly, shamelessly beg them to give her a chance. In text after text, email after email, she was constantly trying to get them to stick around for even just one more night, to try things out with her and let her show them how they were destined to be together.

Greg gave her two dates before cutting her off when she showed up uninvited for a third, and Clayton didn’t even make it a full 24 hours post-intimacy before letting her know there was nothing there, but Mike? He stuck around for over a year, gave her that chance she was begging the other guys for and more.

She still failed, of course, once she got it. That needs to be said. Mike’s terrible saga with Laura proves that even getting what she asks for, a partner, still isn’t enough to satisfy her and keep her stable. She still lied to him, manipulated him with fabricated illnesses and threats against herself, demanded his attention even while he was spending time with his dying stepfather.

But it doesn’t matter that she clearly isn’t well enough to maintain a healthy relationship without spiraling into toxicity and abuse. What matters is that he gave her what she wanted, and now he must be punished for taking it away.

Mike got the privilege of having essays and Tedx Talks dedicated to fictional accounts of his behavior. It was his HR department that LO flew across the country to meet in person to notify of the DVRO. For more than a decade, Laura has pilfered her parents bank accounts and DV clinics of their money and resources in her quest to destroy this man. Even a 7 count felony indictment wasn’t enough to compel her to let go of her hatred and let the restraining order expire.

And now, with another 7 felony charges to her name, she’s faced with that decision once again. Should she focus on her criminal trial and the possibility of years in jail, or is it more important that she make Mike and his family suffer some more?

Initially, I thought she wouldn’t seriously consider the plea deal until there was no hope that they’d be able to avoid the foreclosure of their home, but in an ironic twist, Jan and Ron’s machinations with the bankruptcy court managed to successfully postpone the foreclosure date until after the plea deal’s deadline, but not before the resolution of her appeal of the DVRO’s dismissal in California.

We don’t know what’s going to happen in that regard. The appeals court might allow her last-minute, dubiously truthful emails to be added to the official record. They might tell her to pound sand and deal with the deficiency she created herself. But I seriously wonder if that answer, should it come before August 28th, will determine if she can stomach pleading guilty to her crimes in Arizona, or if she’ll hold out so as to avoid admitting to doing the very things Mike’s team accused her of.

This ended up being way longer than I intended, but what do you all think?

Welcome to the Discussion & Questions post! This is your place to discuss and pose questions about Laura Owens v Clayton Echard Paternity scandal and her other related cases, victims, events, and coverage, share thoughts on the Love Trapped Podcast, and any interesting information you may have.

JFC RULES

Read JFC Sub Rules before posting or commenting. TLDR, be respectful towards everyone and refrain from speculation on Mental Health. If your comment gets removed, you can edit to follow sub rules and send a modmail for us to review and reinstate.

JFC DATES

8/28/26 - Laura’s Criminal Case - Settlement Conference 2:30pm MST
9/29/26 - Owens Home Foreclosure - Auction 10am MST
10/21/26 - Laura’s Criminal Case - Pretrial Management Conference 8:45am MST
10/28/26 - Laura’s Criminal Case - Trial Assignment 9:00am MST
11/28/26 - Laura’s Criminal Case - New Last Day

JFC DATES TO BE ANNOUNCED
Owens v Marraccini - Appeal Opening Brief was Due 7/29/26. Court extended to 15 days after it rules on the motion to augment.

David Gingras’ Arizona Attorney License Bar - Hearing Vacated, Dismissal Denied, and new dates will be announced after the AZSC Denies his Petition.

Saw another point of view covered (will delete if it was posted before).

I'm so excited for this one!

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)

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.

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

The family of serial fraud Laura Owens, who have been helping her in her schemes against victims for years, were in hot water with the feds after making false statements throughout their bankruptcy case. Ronn Owens and Jan Black (aka Elizabeth Naylor) filed a bankruptcy case in bad faith. It was so bad the US trustee told the judge it was "one of the worst" she'd seen in terms of "misstatements." The daughter, Laura, faces 14 felony charges for her crimes against Clayton Echard and Greg Gillespie in Arizona. She has also continued to torment victim Mike Marraccini and his family in California.

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.