# data[].attributes.headline
LO's Restraining Order against GG is set to expire November 15, 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
LO's Restraining Order against GG is set to expire November 15, 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Stipulated Motion for Virtual Appearance of Witness

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Stipulated Motion for Virtual Appearance of Witness

# data[].attributes.body
Email: hay.bales.86@gmail.com

Donations for Breadsticks:

https://www.paypal.me/HayBales08

https://buymeacoffee.com/haybales

# data[].attributes.body
Our team is dedicated to shedding light on Laura M. Owens' alleged abuse of the legal system and human decency to coerce men into entering relationships with her. The owners of this Padlet timeline are focused on facts, evidence, and justice. We are a neutral group of people unaffiliated with any of the accused parties, victims, or public accounts on YouTube, Twitter (X), Reddit, and the like. The contents of this timeline are based upon public court documents and  information posted by the people involved in this case.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Motion Granting Withdrawal of Motion for Sanctions & Affirming Date and Time for Court on June 10th

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Motion Granting Withdrawal of Motion for Sanctions & Affirming Date and Time for Court on June 10th

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Response/Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Judgement 

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Response/Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Judgement 

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Notice of Filing Affidavit of Financial Information

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Notice of Filing Affidavit of Financial Information

# data[].attributes.body
SEALED FROM THE PUBLIC - no court records available

# data[].attributes.body
Motions from the Court:

Partial Granting - Respondent’s Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud

Denied - Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Strike

Denied - Petitioner's Request for Phone Conference

Denied - Petitioner's Motion in Limine

Denied - Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument

# data[].attributes.headline
LO was supposed to submit second sample for Ravgen prenatal paternity test but did not show. Clayton says he received a fake ultrasound video. 

# data[].attributes.subject
LO was supposed to submit second sample for Ravgen prenatal paternity test but did not show. Clayton says he received a fake ultrasound video. 

# data[].attributes.body
Transcript of what he said:

"Alright let me make this short and simple. Update time. Um, this individual that was supposed to submit a sample, their second sample after the first sample came out and said little to no fetal DNA, they were supposed to submit a second sample yesterday. It was confirmed they never showed up and submitted a sample. So, wanted to put that out there so everyone's aware, they never showed up. Beyond that, I found out this morning, this individual sent me an email last week, uh, and showed me the ultrasound video. Um, I already  had my suspicions, because again I already knew that this was not real, um, and, this morning I found the youtube video that this woman ripped the video from. So she took the ultrasound from a youtube clip from six years ago. That is also confirmed. I put them side by side and they are the exact same video. This is the craziest thing I've ever been a part of. Um, I just ask that people cover the truth at this point, I've lost out - I just got another call this morning - I lost out on another speaking engagement. I've lost out on tens of thousands of dollars, so hopefully the truth will now get out and save me."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You’ve been blocked by network security.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO sends Cease & Desist to GG’s girlfriend

# data[].attributes.subject
LO sends Cease & Desist to GG’s girlfriend

# data[].attributes.headline
LO's Domestic Violence Restraining Order Against MM Expires

# data[].attributes.subject
LO's Domestic Violence Restraining Order Against MM Expires

# data[].attributes.body
The Domestic Violence Restraining Order against MM is set to expire on this date (unless LO is able to renew it).

# data[].attributes.body
CPHA Foundation Equitation Finals:

August 26-28, 2016
Showpark Summer Classic, Del Mar Horsepark Contact: Stephanie Wheeler
Del Mar, CA 92014
949-443-1841

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura participates in an August 26-28, 2016 horse show

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura participates in an August 26-28, 2016 horse show

# data[].attributes.body
RESULTS

CPHA Foundation Equitation Championship Final, 22 & Over

Place – Entry Number – Horse – Rider – Trainer

6. 825 – SIG Chester – Laura Owens – Benson Carroll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PRESS RELEASE

August 28, 2016 - Del Mar, CA - The Showpark Summer Classic hosted the California Professional Horsemen's Association (CPHA) Foundation Equitation Championship Finals this weekend. Divided into 22 & Over, 14 & Under and 21 & Under age divisions, after completing Round 1 on Friday, courses with work-offs built in as part of the Foundation format, the competition continued Sunday morning with Round 2 and further work-offs as needed. The honorable Scott Williamson and Mark Jungherr judged the hotly contested event. After two days of tests, three champions stood on the top of the awards podium: Tonya Johnson, Elli Yeager and Grady Lyman.
With tests built in to each of the CPHA Foundation courses, the rules read that after two rounds, the riders with the top four scores and those within three points of the leader, or those with scores of 80 or better, would all perform a final series of tests at the judges' discretion.
Johnson is All Business in the 22 & Over
Tests in Round 1 included a halt after fence 5b, cantering fence 6, trotting fence 9 plus some related distances and tight turn options. Drawing thirteenth in the order of go for day one, Tonya Johnson and her mount, Back In Business, scored an average of 87, which took over the lead and put Kathy Nolan's score of 83 into the second spot. Neither of those scores were topped, with Jessica Smith, Laura Owens and Stephanie Goodson finishing third, fourth and fifth for the round with 81, 80.5 and 80, respectively.

First to go on Sunday morning, the 22 & Over section started off a busy final day. Built-in tests for Round 2 included a halt after fence 2, then picking up a counter-canter to fence 3 which was on a bend to the left. Once again, Johnson led the round with another score of 87 and had a commanding eight-point lead going into the work-off.

The top six riders, who each had a cumulative score of over 160, returned for the final tests. Nolan's second round score reflected some inconsistencies in her ride; however, she returned sitting sixth of the top six called back. Finishing with the highest work-off score of all six riders, Nolan moved back into second place overall. Belle Calkin rode well on day two, moving from sixth to third in round two and with an 83 in the work-off, finished third overall.

Johnson had a rail at the first jump of the work-off, and although she was penalized slightly, her lead going in kept her on the top of the list, earning her the win by a narrow .375 margin.

From Northern California, Johnson trains with Hope Glynn, but came down south with Kelly Van Fleck to compete in these finals for the second time. Along with a championship ribbon and sash, a stall plaque, fresh flowers, a gift certificate and more, Johnson will also travel home with the Victor Hugo-Vidal Perpetual Trophy.

She rode MaryKate Moulton's Back in Business, known as "Willis" at the barn. "He's amazing, big-hearted and a blast to ride. I'm so grateful for the opportunity to show him this year."

As a mental skills coach, she liked how the courses had a variety of challenges and required some thinking. Author of the book, Inside Your Ride, Johnson tries to put her own advice into practice when she performs.

She has ridden since she was a child and remains excited and passionate about the sport. "I always am grateful every time I enter the ring. I enjoy learning new things and keeping my mental game fresh. I've worked on that this year."

Johnson looks forward to competing in more medal finals this season, from Sonoma to Washington, D.C.
Yes for Yeager in the 14 & Under
Round 1 for the youngest division started Saturday afternoon with 49 entries. Though they each may be only fourteen or younger, many have solid show miles already. Their tests in Round 1 were to halt after fence 6, which was in the bending line with 7ab, then canter 7ab and trot fence 9.

The best eleven trips all scored 80.25 or above, with the top score of the class, 88, earned by Elli Yeager riding Alant. The ten scores below Yeager were quite close, only two points separating first through fourth: Sydnie Young with an 87, Brooke Morin with 86.5 and Alexis O'Leary with 86.

Going into Round 2 on Sunday, it was still any of the top eleven rider's final to win.

The tests on the second day of the 14 & Under division included a counter-canter to fence 6 of a left-hand turn and a hand gallop to the final fence 11, a single oxer on the long side.

The star of Round 2 was Saturday's 80.25 score, Kaitlyn Lovingfoss, who moved from eleventh place to first with a score of 87 and a cumulative score 167.3 going into the work-off. As the scores came in, other positions in the top four shifted, with both Julia Stone and Payton Potter moving up into the top four, both consistently earning scores in the 80s.

With a good but not great round, Yeager slipped into third. The judges once again brought back each rider that scored above 160, which for this division meant the top four.

Jumping back into the number one position, Yeager earned another 88 for the top score and the win by one point with a total of 170. Coming in a close second was Julia Stone, whose score of 86 in the work-off gave her an overall total of 169. After coming in fourth last year, Lovingfoss moved up to third this season. Potter finished fourth.

Third time's the charm for Yeager, as this is the third year she has competed in this final and her first win. Committed to riding, when asked about other hobbies or interests, she said that horses were it.

She was glowing about her horse Avant. "His barn name is Fidget. He is seven years old and a half thoroughbred. He's absolutely amazing. I've shown him in a few Hunter Derbies, but this is only his second medal final."

Yeager will take home the Hap Hansen Perpetual Trophy, sponsored by the Van Sickle Family and Shadowbrook Stables, along with a list of other awards, including a cooler from Damoor's Feed & Tack, a bouquet of flowers, and more.

With big goals, Yeager wants to qualify for the Maclay Finals and win the Talent Search Finals, which means she will be competing in September at both Blenheim Fall Tournament for the Maclay Regionals and International Jumping Festival for the USEF Talent Search Finals, West Coast.
Lyman in the 21 & Under Limelight
Forty-nine of California's best young riders competed for the top prize in the 21 & Under age division of the CPHA Foundation Equitation Championship Finals. The group rode two days of tracks developed by FEI course designer Anthony D'Ambrosio. The honorable Scott Williamson and Mark Jungherr moved from Ring 1 to the Grand Prix Field to observe and test some of the best equitation in the West.

D'Ambrosio's first-round track consisted of 14 efforts, with two double combinations and two built-in tests, asking riders to trot fence 7 on top of the hill and halt before the last line heading home fences 11 to 12ab. It also demanded a smooth, flowing track.

In this field, the top fourteen scores were 80 or higher. Grady Lyman earned an impressive score of 90 in the first round aboard H Quito VH Parishof, three points higher than second place finisher Sydney McManus. Gracie Marlowe and Serena Anand rounded out the top four, with scores of 86.5 and 86.

The other competitors in the top ten were Emily Maclean, Tyler Francis, Michael Williamson, Ransome Rombauer, Katie Browne and Kit Cunningham.

As the final class of Grand Prix Field today, D'Ambrosio created a more technical track with 16 efforts, demanding the riders to be in control of each stride. The first test was two simple changes between fences 2 and 3, which if the changes went smoothly, were six strides apart. Competitors also had to counter-canter fence 6 on a left bend from fence 5. Other challenges included a double to a four stride line and a triple combination towards the end of the course.

Lyman once again topped the class with an 89, with McManus holding on to second, scoring an 85. While some riders had errors on course and slipped down in the standings, Kacie Doyle, winner of last week's CPHA Amateur Medal Final, jumped into the third spot. Nine riders returned to work-off, once again each of them having a cumulative score above 160.

The work-off began with counter-cantering a jump, then after negotiating five more jumps in various directions, riders finished with a hand gallop and halt towards the line-up.

The work-off scores were announced at the same time as the top ten ribbon winners, in reverse order. The top four held their own; however, the highest scoring work-off round went to McManus, who earned a 90. Still finishing second, she couldn't quite catch Lyman's overall excellence, as her work-off scored an 88 and she finished 1.5 points in the lead. Doyle also had a high scoring work-off, 87, and earned the third place spot on the finals podium.

This was Lyman's first year in the 21 & Under division, having just moved up from the 14 & Under. But she is not new to the winner's circle, having won the 2015 PCHA Horsemanship Finals and 2015 CPHA Junior Medal Finals.

Her mount, H Quito VH Parishof, is a jumper that has only been in the equitation ring for a few weeks. "He's a very quick learner and absolutely amazing," Lyman noted.

Riding with Nick Haness, Karen Healey also worked with Lyman this week. Along with the Championship, a cooler from DaMoor's Feed & Tack, a medal, stall plaque and fresh flowers, she was presented with the Barbara Worth Oakford Perpetual Trophy, sponsored by Hester Equestrian.

The action continues this week in Del Mar with the Showpark All Seasons Summer Tournament, August 31st through September 4th. Hunter highlights include the Sallie B. Wheeler/USEF National Hunter Breeding Championship, and Jumper highlights include the $45,000 Young Jumper Championships (YJC) West Coast Finals, the $20,000 Interactive Mortgage Horses 10&U Futurity Final, a $25,000 Markel Insurance Grand Prix Series Qualifier as well as an Interactive Mortgage U25 Developing Rider Series qualifier, plus the $50,000 Showpark All Seasons Grand Prix.
RESULTS CPHA Foundation Equitation Championship Final, 22 & Over Place - Entry Number - Horse - Rider - Trainer

1. 157 - Back in Business - Tonya Johnson - Kelly Van Vleck

2. 328 - It's Agreed - Kathy Nolan - Mark Bone and Jamie Taylor

3. 624 - Belle Agio - Belle Calkin - Joe Thorpe

4. 193 - Freedom - Jessica Smith - Nicole Husky

5. 362 - Poetic - Stephanie Goodson - Kate Considine

6. 825 - SIG Chester - Laura Owens - Benson Carroll

7. 824 - Kairo - Lauren Michaels - Benson Carroll

8. 571 - Conux - Jaime Krupnick - Jenny Ross

9. 573 - Orblack du Moens - Karoline Sauls - Tasha Visokay

10. 223 - Carusti - Margrethe Munkdale - Nicole Norris

CPHA Foundation Equitation Championship Final, 14 & Under Place - Entry Number - Horse - Rider - Trainer

568 - Alant - Elli Yeager - Tasha Visokay
2. 750 - Cosmopolitan - Julia Stone - Courtney Cochran
3. 841 - Hasta La Vista - Kaitlyn Lovingfoss - Carolyn Culligan
4. 449 - Cinematic - Payton Potter - Sue Lightner
5. 108 - Spotify - Emma Reichow - Harley Brown
6. 862 - Autumn Lane - Brooke Morin - John Bragg
7. 845 - Hudson Bay - Breanna Bunevaez - Sandie Springer
8. 546 - Golondro - Juliette Joseph - Robyn Stiegler
9. 150 - Mr. Lincoln - Bianca Jenkins - Devon Gibson
10. 136 - Radcliffe - Alex Trubey - Michael Endicott
CPHA Foundation Equitation Championship Final, 21 & Under Place - Entry Number - Horse - Rider - Trainer

1. 777 - H Quito VH Parishof - Grady Lyman - Nick Haness and Karen Healey

2. 518 - Serendipity - Sydney McManus - Theresa Petyo-Wallace and Karen Healey

3. 646 - Jet Jones - Kacie Doyle - Hap Hansen and Trudy Fletcher

4. 206 - Gaston - Ransome Rombauer - Daniel Ighani and Karen Healey

5. 112 - Citadel - Emma Marlowe - David Bustillos and Leslie Steele

6. 791 - S&L Technicolor - Emily Maclean - Tasha Visokay and Kilian McGrath

7. 569 - Chinchurro Z - Katie Browne - Tasha Visokay and Kilian McGrath

8. 369 - Cairo - Tyler Francis - Natalie Cooper and Kristy Miller

9. 316 - Long Island Iced Tea - Michael Williamson - Patty Ball

10. 763 - Casmir Z - Peyton Warren - Jill and Jan Humphrey

Photos by CapturedMomentPhoto.com and Blenheim EquiSports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CPHA Foundation Equitation Championships Conclude and Crown Champions Tonya Johnson, Elli Yeager & Grady Lyman - The Plaid Horse Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grady Lyman and H Quito VH Parishof PRESS RELEASE August 28, 2016 - Del Mar, CA - The Showpark Summer Classic hosted the California Professional Horsemen's Association (CPHA) Foundation Equitation Championship Finals this weekend. Divided into 22 & Over, 14 & Under and 21 & Under age divisions, after completing Round 1 on Friday, courses with [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Unredacted Response Objection to Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Strike And Request For Immediate Scheduling Conference_Redacted

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Response to Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Strike And Request For Immediate Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Response to Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Strike And Request For Immediate Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.body
Document posted on Twitter by Laura’s Lawyer

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Strike

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Strike

# data[].attributes.body
Official Court Record

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: Texts between MM and LO on 2/17/2017

# data[].attributes.headline
MM accuses LO of faking TWO pregnancies 

# data[].attributes.subject
MM accuses LO of faking TWO pregnancies 

# data[].attributes.body
This is being shared at this point in the timeline, because Laura's attorney is currently stating that Matt is lying about believing that Laura was lying about being pregnant twice

https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2978506436

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Laura files Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Strike and Request for Immediate Telephonic Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Laura files Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Strike and Request for Immediate Telephonic Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.body
Uploaded to Twitter by Laura’s Lawyer

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Laura submits affidavit Re: Ovarian Cancer/Medical Documents

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Laura submits affidavit Re: Ovarian Cancer/Medical Documents

# data[].attributes.body
HCG Blood Test Result: 6,220
🚨 Test Result should be Flagged with an "H" = High 🚨

# data[].attributes.body
Laura receives a CT of her pelvis. Findings show that Laura still has both ovaries, disputing any records or claims of having an ovary removed on August 30, 2016, while dating MM.

# data[].attributes.headline
August 31, 2016                 LO texts MM after “ovary removal surgery”

# data[].attributes.subject
August 31, 2016                 LO texts MM after “ovary removal surgery”

# data[].attributes.headline
August 13, 2016       Evidence that LO told MM that she had Ovarian Cancer

# data[].attributes.subject
August 13, 2016       Evidence that LO told MM that she had Ovarian Cancer

# data[].attributes.body
Text messages between LO and MM and faked medical documents (allegedly) sent to MM by LO

# data[].attributes.body
On May 3, 2024 LO disputes that the medical documents stating she has ovarian cancer and had an ovary removed belong to her.

Note: Metadata shows that nearly all documents were saved in Photoshop

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: LO v Clayton Echard - Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondents Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud, Dated April 30, 2024

# data[].attributes.body
LO Claims to have surgery for ovarian cancer and a surgical abortion
On April 30, 2024, it is learned through court documents that LO claimed to have ovarian cancer with surgery to remove her right ovary, as well as a surgical abortion at the same time. Note: In all medical documents and all communications received throughout the years of cases, there is never any mention of ovarian cancer or surgery to remove an ovary.

https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2977176277

# data[].attributes.body
HCG Blood Test Results: 4,130

🚨 A result of 4,130 mIU/mL would be automatically flagged by the system with an H for High. This would be noted on the same line as the test result, below “Flag”. Because it is not flagged, it would appear that this is a doctored medical document. Also, “Final result” is inappropriately split between 2 lines. 🚨

# data[].attributes.body
“Patient had aspiration abortion 8/2/2016. Also attempted medical abortion twice and say the results were more like spotting than consistent bleeding (failed abortion)”

# data[].attributes.body
“As of end of visit on 8/2/2016 client Laura is not pregnant, verified by clinician Anna Webster”

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source for surgical abortion: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud, Dated April 30, 2024

# data[].attributes.body
LO medical document "proving" prior pregnancy

LO shared a Dropbox folder, publicly, with Clayton Echard, Reality Steve, Dave Neal and posted it on Reddit. The Dropbox contained multiple documents attempting to prove to everyone that she was pregnant with Clayton Echard's babies. This screenshot was shared in the Dropbox to prove that she had been pregnant in the past with MM's baby and she claimed that he went to Planned Parenthood with her. Note: Dates on medical document appears to be August 2, yet court documents filed by Clayton Echard reveal that Laura had a surgical abortion on August 30, 2016 (validity of medical documents unknown).

# data[].attributes.body
Laura claimed to have terminated a pregnancy with MM in July 2016. In April 2024, in the Clayton Echard case, Clayton states via court documents, that medical documents reveal that Laura had a surgical abortion August 30, 2016. The validity of those documents are unknown.

LO/CE Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud, Dated April 30, 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Emergency Motion to Strike and Request for Immediate Telephonic Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Emergency Motion to Strike and Request for Immediate Telephonic Scheduling Conference

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 2

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 1

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Ruling Motion to Compel Lunch Denied

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Ruling Motion to Compel Lunch Denied

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura files Motion to Withdraw Name Change and Request for Refund of Fees

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura files Motion to Withdraw Name Change and Request for Refund of Fees

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 4

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 4

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 3

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 3

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 2

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud Part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: Extracted from Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Amended Motion for Relief Based on Fraud filed April 26, 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Laura's Affidavit with Exhibits 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Laura's Affidavit with Exhibits 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2979948852

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT BASED ON FRAUD

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Amended Motion for Relief From Judgement Based on Fraud

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Amended Motion for Relief From Judgement Based on Fraud

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparison of the 8/6/21 and 8/8/21 sonograms

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparison of the 8/6/21 and 8/8/21 sonograms

# data[].attributes.body
Comparison of the 8/6/21 and 8/8/21 sonograms Laura texted Greg G. The 8/6 sonogram is the starting one and the 8/8 sonogram is overlaid on top. In this video, the opacity of the 8/8 sonogram goes from 0 to 100%.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: Exhibit from Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 26 filed 1/3/24

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura wants Clayton to take Ravgen Paternity test, with stipulations

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura wants Clayton to take Ravgen Paternity test, with stipulations

# data[].attributes.body
Source: Exhibit from Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 26 filed 1/3/24

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
San Mateo County, California Court Record - judyrecords

# data[].attributes.body
Failure to stop at a red light
Failure to appear

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
View Document ~TR Minute Order

View Document ~TR Minute Order

View Document ~TR Minute Order

View Document ~TR Minute Order - Arraignment (Reserved Online) 06/11/2018

View Document Judge ProTem Stip

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Mateo County, California Court Record - judyrecords

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instantly search 740 million+ United States court cases.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/GG: ME - Granting Motion to Vacate Arbitration Hearing

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/GG: ME - Granting Motion to Vacate Arbitration Hearing

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: LO’s Affidavit shared within attorney David Gingras’s blog dated April 19, 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
Photo of LO Dated September 19, 2023 via LO’s April 19, 2024 Affidavit 

# data[].attributes.subject
Photo of LO Dated September 19, 2023 via LO’s April 19, 2024 Affidavit 

# data[].attributes.body
Link to April 19, 2024 Documents: https://padlet.com/haybales/breakout-link/BbjnqxrQrAQ6493Q-QlgRvwPPLp1VbK9q

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Exhibit from Laura’s August 23, 2023 Motion to Compel

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura shares an exhibit dated June 18, 2023, showing she took a pregnancy test in front of Clayton the day before, on June 17, 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura shares an exhibit dated June 18, 2023, showing she took a pregnancy test in front of Clayton the day before, on June 17, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: Laura’s Motion for Contempt against Clayton filed August 23, 2023. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura states in her court filing that she took a pregnancy test in front of Clayton on June 17, 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura states in her court filing that she took a pregnancy test in front of Clayton on June 17, 2023

# data[].attributes.body
This contradict’s Laura’s Affidavit from April 19, 2024, where she claims the test was completed on June 19, 2023

Source: https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2922095325

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
✂️ Source: Going Deeper with Clayton Echard - “I Am Not The Father”  (The Viall Files w/ Nick Viall)

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura takes pregnancy test at Clayton's House

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura takes pregnancy test at Clayton's House

# data[].attributes.body
Clayton purchases a pregnancy test and asked Laura to confirm the pregnancy. She goes to the bathroom and the result comes out positive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
✂️ Laura takes pregnancy test at Clayton's house

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
60 seconds · Clipped by JustJen · Original video "Going Deeper with Clayton Echard - "I Am Not The Father" | The Viall Files w/ Nick Viall" by Nick Viall

# data[].attributes.body
EMPHASIS ADDED
Text messages quotes where Laura contradicts these claims:

May 25: "Let me tell you how serious I am about all of this since you think it was a plot to 'hold on' to you. If you were to tell me that we could date if I admitted to 'making it up,' as you called it before... I would tell you no-can-do. None of this is made up and I am genuinely panicked. I cannot be more serious about this.

June 18: "Don't you think if I wanted to trap you I would have begged you to sleep with me????"

Email quotes where Laura contradicts these claims:

June 28: "If you think about it, having sex with me is the safest thing you can do as this point. I am already pregnant and if we choose to go this route (and trust each other enough to have sex), then we are at the point where I would be taking abortion pills, so there is no risk."

July 1: "Obviously, I would love to have sex in the future and feel like I am the safest person you could have sex with since I'm pregnant, but if you really think that like you said yesterday , my goal was to date and get pregnant during this time, we can absolutely hold off on it. However, it occurred to me that you might believe me more about paternity if you were inside of me and felt how tight I would be after not having sex in more than a year. Maybe then you'd believe that I hadn't been sleeping around, and again, you wouldn't be doing me any big favor... having sex with me is a privilege and not something I have done for a long time.”

Reddit post from Laura’s verified account:

October 7: We consensually did stuff when we were both under the influence.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO competes at the $5,000 NAL Adult Amateur Hunter Classic West Coast Finals

# data[].attributes.subject
LO competes at the $5,000 NAL Adult Amateur Hunter Classic West Coast Finals

# data[].attributes.body
https://mccoolproofs.pixieset.com/2023blenheiminternationaljumpingfestival/scirocco91169/?pid=9945747635&id=23&h=MjgxMTk3NDQ0MQ

https://blenheim.showgroundslive.com/classes/detail?cid=54137&sid=10018

# data[].attributes.body
LO cancels appointment scheduled for 8/15/2023 with perinatal specialist Dr. Makhoul due to COVID.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Nov. 2nd IAH hearing (~44:45 into the video), LO claims that she saw Dr. Higley on October 27, 2023 and that she is 100% pregnant with twins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Echard v Owens - Nov 2, 2023 - Scottsdale, Arizona

# data[].attributes.headline
DG Blog: What The Hell Is A “Vanishing Twin”?

# data[].attributes.subject
DG Blog: What The Hell Is A “Vanishing Twin”?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An anonymous person recently posted this comment on my blog. Many others have said similar things.

I think it's important enough to warrant a direct response:

I'm probably a minority in that I'm following this case but not necessarily part of the "jfc" crew. I don't think it's fair to make assumptions until now evidence is seen though I admit all evidence out there really supports Clayton's side. I agree it's reasonable to assume she did think she was pregnant (or even was early on)... Heck, Clayton believed it enough to take a test. I'm sure if you really did NOTHING that was even at risk of getting someone pregnant you wouldn't bat an eye. BUT here is where I think the difference is that makes everyone mad. She didn't just miscarry and then move on.......... she faked ultrasounds (which she admitted) and while she hasn't admitted to it I think it's obvious that she faked an ongoing pregnancy while knowing she wasn't pregnant (ie: showing up to court in November with a bump). now whether all of that stuff is related enough to get her trouble in court? I don't know. I'm not involved in law enough. But I think that's at least the basis of everyone being so angry.

OK, let's unpack this comment, because it's something I have seen a LOT of people speculating about. The theory goes like this:

1.) Laura had like 5-6 positive pregnancy tests before she filed the paternity case against Clayton (actually I think it was 4 positive tests BEFORE the case was filed, and then many positive tests after).....so OK, that's actually pretty strong proof she was pregnant. Since we can't prove she faked any of these tests, we can probably give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she WAS pregnant....at least at first (and keep in mind - the paternity case was filed on August 1, 2023).

2.) Even if Laura WAS pregnant on August 1, she claims she later had a miscarriage, maybe even as late as 22+ weeks into the pregnancy, but maybe sooner. At that late stage, if she miscarried a child (or twins) that were between 4-5 months along, there MUST have been an obvious dead baby/babies. You can't have a dead 5 month old fetus fall out without noticing it. That would make NO sense (DSG note - I agree 100%).

3.) Laura has failed to offer any proof of these dead 4/5 month old fetuses, and she has never explained where the dead babies went, therefore she MUST be lying. GOTCHA!

OK, for all you keyboard warriors out there who read some shit on Reddit, watched a few videos on YouTube, and NOW you think you know EVERYTHING about pregnancy, let me break some hard truth for you - you're wrong. You don't know everything (and neither do I, by the way).

That is why you HIRE EXPERTS. Because average people may think they know it all, but the truth is, you just don't. No, seriously - STOP. You don't. D__ N___? I'm talking to you here....

And in case you didn't catch this news - Clayton HAS hired two OB/GYN experts. OOH WOW! TWO EXPERTS! HE MUST BE DOUBLE WINNING! SO MUCH WINNING FOR BIG STRONG CLAYTON!

But Clayton has not shared anything about what his experts are going to say. Having litigated TONS of cases with experts, I can tell you - that's not normal. The rules require this disclosure, so I assume Clayton will be sharing that info soon.

But here is more news - Laura has also hired an OB/GYN expert. Just one. Sorry, not doing the twin expert thing. That's a noob move.

Our expert is still reviewing info and asking questions, and he hasn't produced his expert report yet. Obviously that will be disclosed to Clayton's team as soon as we have it, probably next week (I don't like to rush these things).

So while I can't tell you exactly what Laura's expert has concluded, I can share with you some information - it is ABSOLUTELY possible that Laura could have been pregnant with twins, had an early miscarriage of one, continued to gain weight, and then ended the pregnancy with a "SAB" (the medical term for a miscarriage), ALL WITHOUT EVER PASSING A STILLBORN FETUS.

But don't take Dr. Gingras' word on this. This is a REAL medical thing that happens. It even has a pretty intriguing name: " Vanishing Twin Syndrome ":

Vanishing twin syndrome, as the name depicts, is a condition in which one of a set of twins or multiple embryos dies in utero, disappear, or gets resorbed partially or entirely, with an outcome of a spontaneous reduction of a multi-fetus pregnancy to a singleton pregnancy, portraying the image of a vanishing twin. In simple words, the number of embryos conceived, as observed via ultrasonographic examination in early pregnancy, differs from the number of fetuses delivered. This phenomenon occurs in multi-fetus pregnancies, commonly during the first trimester.

Twin loss can happen in the form of miscarriage, of which the mother is aware or in the form of vaginal bleeding or spotting in the first trimester without any knowledge of the mother, as vaginal bleeding is instead a frequent obstetric complication during the first trimester of pregnancy so that the twin loss may go unnoticed. This phenomenon can range from the disappearance of an early empty gestational sac to a sac that had developed a fetal pole to a fetus with documented heart activity.

Without getting too graphic (and to be honest, this is something I hadn't even considered), it is medically possible for a woman to become pregnant with twins, have two babies develop inside her womb, and then something goes wrong and one baby stops developing and dies, but the fetus is not discharged from the woman's body; the fetus/uterus is simply "reabsorbed" into the body.

Be honest - did you know such a thing was possible? Until a few days ago, I had no clue this was possible...and to be honest with you, I kind of understood why people like Clayton's lawyer were jumping up and down saying: "WHERE'S THE BABY!?! WHERE'S THE BABY!?!" In the absence of any other medical explanation (and for people who are NOT doctors), this made a lot of sense.

I've even seen suggestions that Laura MUST be lying about miscarrying so late in her term because if that happened, she would have been legally required to file a death certificate for the baby/babies. Again, sounds like a cool theory....but is it solid?

No, it's not.

Everything changes when you understand it is entirely possible Laura was pregnant with twins, had a partial early SAB (miscarriage of one baby), remained pregnant with the other, and then had a second SAB followed by reabsorption (rather than stillbirth). By legal definition, Laura would NOT be required to file a death certificate in that case because no child was ever stillborn after 20 weeks. See A.R.S. 36-301(14) (defining "fetal death" to mean "the cessation of life before the complete expulsion or extraction of an unborn child from the child's mother....") A dead fetus that is reabsorbed into the mom's body doesn't count as a "fetal death" because the unborn child never left the mom's body (yes, this is all seriously kind of creepy, but just stay with me).

In this case (and yes, you will still need to wait for trial to get the full/final story), it is medically possible that Laura experienced Vanishing Twin Syndrome, or something similar. That would explain literally every detail of what happened to her.

It would explain the positive pregnancy tests at the start. It would explain the partial early SAB, followed by more positive tests, concluding with very low HCG tests which confirm the non-viability of the second fetus, followed by complete reabsorption rather than stillbirth. This explains her weight gain. Explains the NOT-fake "moon bump". Explains the NUMEROUS positive pregnancy tests, followed by positive (but unrealistically low) HCG results. Explains the lack of a fetal death certificate.

Explains literally EVERY. SINGLE. DETAIL. ALL OF IT, START TO FINISH.

But hey - screw the facts. What fun is the truth when a lie sells SO much better? Breadsticks aren't free, and people want more drama, more scandals, more LIES, rather than nasty depressing stories about dead babies reabsorbing into the mom... EEEEWWW. So we keep selling lies. It's better that way.

So I agree - screw the truth. Just keep blogging about what a liar Laura is, what a saint Clayton is, and what an immoral scumbag attorney I am for standing by Laura's side. Keep doing that folks. No chance Laura will sue any of you into homeless oblivion when it's all done, because we know you all really tried darn hard to be honest and fair. Just not sure a jury will see it that way.

Enough unpaid commentary for now. Just remember what our friend Mark Twain said:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An anonymous person recently posted this comment on my blog. Many others have said similar things. I think it's important enough to warrant a direct response: I'm probably a minority in that I'm following this case but not necessarily part of the "jfc" crew.

# data[].attributes.headline
DG Blog: What Does “Justice For Clayton” Look Like? Let me tell you….

# data[].attributes.subject
DG Blog: What Does “Justice For Clayton” Look Like? Let me tell you….

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does “Justice For Clayton” Look Like? Let me tell you…. – Gingras Law Office, PLLC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you’re following the Owens v. Echard case, you have probably seen a LOT of folks talking about how they want to see “Justice for Clayton!”. There’s a JFC Twitter account. There’s a JFC GoFundMe page. I’m guessing JFC t-shirts are next (idea: JFC condoms?)

# data[].attributes.headline
LO’s MomDoc record included within her 4/19/2024 affidavit. Self-reported pregnancy history is vastly different than what has been reported in legal history

# data[].attributes.subject
LO’s MomDoc record included within her 4/19/2024 affidavit. Self-reported pregnancy history is vastly different than what has been reported in legal history

# data[].attributes.body
Laura provides her pregnancy history:
G: 2 P: 0-0-2-0 SAB x 1.
G: 2 - means 2 pregnancies,
P: 0-0-2-0 - means 0 term births, 0 preterm births (prior to 37 weeks gestation, 2 abortions (spontaneous or induced), 0 living children
SAB x 1 - means 1 spontaneous abortion (miscarriage prior to 20 weeks gestation)

This is vastly different than what LO has claimed in her court filings/records.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO affidavit shared within the DG blog  

# data[].attributes.subject
LO affidavit shared within the DG blog  

# data[].attributes.headline
DG Blog: Let’s Talk About Lies – Part 1 (changes/edits)

# data[].attributes.subject
DG Blog: Let’s Talk About Lies – Part 1 (changes/edits)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Wayback Machine is an initiative of the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Other projects include Open Library & archive-it.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Let s Talk About Lies Part 1 Gingras Law Office PLLC

# data[].attributes.headline
DG Blog that was posted, then taken down, the reposted.

# data[].attributes.subject
DG Blog that was posted, then taken down, the reposted.

# data[].attributes.headline
DG Blog: My Guest Appearance On The Bachelor, I Mean Dr. Phil

# data[].attributes.subject
DG Blog: My Guest Appearance On The Bachelor, I Mean Dr. Phil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Someone recently accused me (falsely) of talking about a case as an act of "self-promotion". Um, is there something wrong with self-promotion? I think we should all promote ourselves, to a degree. Don't be an arrogant asshole (which, in a past life, I certainly was). But if you have something useful to say to the world, why not say it?

Most people who know me are familiar with the fact that I used to do a fair amount of media appearances. I have received formal media training, and as part of handling high-profile cases, I sometimes need to go public to share information about a case.

Anyway, it occurs to me that rather than promoting myself too much, the truth is I have been too focused on work and probably haven't promoted myself enough. After all, if people want to know what you've done, how will they ever know unless you tell them?

So here's a fun story - back in 2010, on a Sunday evening I got a phone call from my client, Nik Richie. Back then, Nik had a website called TheDirty.com which was a very early precursor to what you see on social media today. The site began purely for comedic purposes. WAY before sites like Instagram even existed, TheDirty.com was a place where you could submit funny photos showing your friends drunk at a bar, or whatever.

Pretty quickly, TheDirty.com BLEW UP and was, for a while, one of the most-talked about websites in existence. Traffic was around 20 million uniques per month. And although TheDirty initially began as a place to have fun, some people started to abuse it, posting really horrible stuff about other people....sometimes even strangers. Back then, 15+ years ago, this was kind of a new thing, and it made BIG news, often national news.

So one Sunday night, Nik Richie calls me and asks: "Hey are you free tomorrow? I just got a call from the Dr. Phil show and they want to know if we can come do an appearance. I need you to come with me, if you can."

Well, of course I could, so literally about 12 hours after getting the call, we flew to LA and got picked up by a driver who took us to Dr. Phil's TV studio. We had our own little green room, and some nice lady came and did our hair & makeup. Notably, we NEVER met Dr. Phil, never talked with any of the producers (at least not about the contents of the show). We just sat there and waited....wondering what would happen next.

At some point, a lady with a headset and clipboard comes to get us. She walks us through this dark studio, below some bleachers which were clearly filled with people sitting in the audience (they couldn't see us). The producer walked us up on stage, gave us some chairs, and sat us down (Nik's wife, former Bachelor winner Shayne Lamas was also with us).

The lights come up, out comes Dr. Phil, and BOOM - the ambush began. Dr. Phil has some girl (Bruna?) sitting there who had been posted on TheDirty by a stranger. They said nasty things about her. She cried. Said her world was destroyed. The audience was PISSED. I could see people glaring at us and shaking their heads. I felt the pressure in the room building. And while I like Shayne Lamas (she and Nik have sadly split up), I don't think Shayne's comments helped much.

Prior to this, I had never heard anything about Bruna. Didn't know her story. Was never given a chance to help her out. So it was a total ambush.

That's why, in the second clip below, I started by apologizing to her. It was clear to me Dr. Phil did not understand the legal situation (under the law, website owners like Nik are not liable for what people post on their sites, just like Mark Zuckerberg is not liable for what you post on Facebook). And although the law was 100% on our side, Dr. Phil didn't see it that way. So, I felt I needed to start by defusing the situation. I did that by telling Bruna I was sorry for what she had been through.

After my apology to this lady I had never met, I briefly sparred with Dr. Phil, trying to explain why he shouldn't be blaming Nik for everything people posted on his website. He pushed back at first, but after a few minutes, he finally started to realize I was right.

Couple things - this was 14 years ago, and when we did the show, I am not gonna lie - I was NERVOUS. Not about being on TV...I have done tons of TV. It was more the fact that we had ZERO prep time with the producers. We did not know what Dr. Phil was going to ask. We did not know who else would be on the show. Put yourself in that situation. It's hard to respond to an attack when you have no idea where the attack is coming from.

So if I look or sound nervous, cut me some slack. This was me doing my best to respond to a completely unprepared situation, entirely off-the-cuff. If they had given me at least 5 minutes of prep time before this, I'm sure I would have been a lot smoother.

NOTE - the main part of my discussion with Dr. Phil is in the second video below. For copyright reasons, I can't post the whole show, but these clips give you an idea of what went down.

And fun fact - although it was clear Dr. Phil didn't like me or Nik at first, we actually had a good talk with him back stage after this was taped, and Nik ended up being asked to return as Dr. Phil's guest on at least two or three more shows.

P.S. TheDirty.com is gone now, but I was their lawyer from 2007 to 2018. During that time, they were sued 42 times. My track record of results? 42 cases, 42 wins (well, more or less; I can explain some other time).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Guest Appearance On The Bachelor, I Mean Dr. Phil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Someone recently accused me (falsely) of talking about a case as an act of "self-promotion". Um, is there something wrong with self-promotion? I think we should all promote ourselves, to a degree. Don't be an arrogant asshole (which, in a past life, I certainly was).

# data[].attributes.headline
Compilation of Allegations and Other Problematic Behavior by Laura Owens 

# data[].attributes.subject
Compilation of Allegations and Other Problematic Behavior by Laura Owens 

# data[].attributes.body
In an email to Clayton and his parents, Laura states that her sister had her baby on May 24th.

Source: https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2954452474

Transcribed version:  https://padlet.com/haybales/laura-owen-s-timeline-qz4pd706aw8m8zv3/wish/2954606329

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Email to Clayton and his parents after alleged June 25 “ultrasound”. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Transcript of Email Subject: Pregnancy confirmation via ultrasound next steps

# data[].attributes.subject
Transcript of Email Subject: Pregnancy confirmation via ultrasound next steps

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura Sends Email to Clayton & his Parents. Subject: Pregnancy confirmation via ultrasound & next steps

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura Sends Email to Clayton & his Parents. Subject: Pregnancy confirmation via ultrasound & next steps

# data[].attributes.body
Laura tells Clayton’s parents that she had an ultrasound at Planned Parenthood in Orange County and mentions she was there on Sunday (June 25th?).

Laura says: “I am attaching a screenshot of my chart after my visit on Sunday to Planned Parenthood in Orange County, which confirms that I had an ultrasound that was consistent with the conception date of 5/20 when I was with Clayton (and like I’ve said, he's the only person I’ve been with since March of 2022), that there was a gestational sac meaning a viable pregnancy, and that I refused to view the ultrasound and take the abortion pills at the clinic. They don't typically allow you to take them home, but since I live out of state and was as conflicted as I was, they allowed me to.”

# data[].attributes.body
In an email sent on behalf of "Joe Cotchett" says in an email to LO that they received all records and the records align with her story.

In the records LO shares, it states she has had NO PREVIOUS PREGNANCIES!!!!!!

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/GG: Conversation with Joe Cotchett and Contract

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/GG: Conversation with Joe Cotchett and Contract

# data[].attributes.body
Email exchange between LO and Joe Cotchett and Alison Cordova (associate) plus a “Contingent Fee Agreement” signed by LO and dated August 23, 2021.

According to Alison Cordova’s LinkedIn, she left CPM in October 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Exhibit 1 taken from the Declaration of Fraud submitted 10-04-2021 by LO

# data[].attributes.body
Email from GW to LO

# data[].attributes.body
Laura emails the judge in the GG case ex parte on August 1, 2022 accusing GG and GW of orchestrating the SA.

# data[].attributes.body
Pregnancy Timeline 5 (Maintained from April 16, 2024 to present). Note: ***entries conflict with Laura's version in affidavit***:

May 20: Date of Conception (LO claims this was penetration without consent in her April 16, 2024 affidavit). LO states in affidavit that she did not want to have sexual intercourse with Clayton, but "Clayton inserted his penis inside by vagina for a moment." She also states, "Although Clayton’s conduct might fit the technical definition of rape or sexual assault, I did not and do not want to accuse him of any crime, nor do I want him to be criminally prosecuted."

***June 28: Clayton's expert OB/GYNs state that Laura messaged her neurologist at Barrow Neurological Institute on June 28, and stated that she visited a Planned Parenthood in California the weekend prior (June 24-25), which would correlate to a gestational age of 7w0d.***

July 2: LO claims that she was driven by her mother to an appointment with Planned Parenthood in Southern California (did not specify which one) to obtain pills to medically terminate the pregnancy. She says she went in alone, received an ultrasound which verified that she was pregnant. In this version, she does not claim to have gone to the appointment anonymously. She says she took a photo of the sonogram on the screen with her phone, which she later changed from Planned Parenthood to SMIL and now claims that she changed the date from July 2 to July 7, but says she did not change anything else. LO says that she wanted to leave PP with abortion pills, but was not allowed to and would have to take the pills at PP, so she left without the pills.

July 3: Clayton's experts state that LO messaged Scottsdale Perinatal Associates, where Dr. Makhoul practices, to inquire how soon a twin gestation could be determined. Clayton's experts state that twins can be determined by an ultrasound performed by 7 weeks gestation, indicating that LO should've already known that she was having twins if she had an ultrasound on June 24-25 or July 2.

July 23: LO claims that she had some bleeding and passed what appeared to be a two small fleshy objects, no more than an inch or two. Clayton's experts mention that LO provided evidence that she had a Telehealth appointment and then called a miscarriage and abortion hotline (verification of actual appointments is unknown).

July 25: LO says that she took another at home pregnancy test, which had a positive result.

August 1: LO states that she felt fine and had no further bleeding, took another at home pregnancy test with a positive result, and filed the petition for paternity.

August-October: LO states she gained weight and believed that she was still pregnant.

October 16: LO had a "self-ordered" blood test for HCG with a result of 102.

November 14: LO visits MomDoc for the first verified OB/GYN visit since claiming to be pregnant where she takes 2 pregnancy tests, both of which were negative. In the MomDoc report, it states that LO was told that a result of 102 at 21 weeks gestation meant she that had a nonviable pregnancy.

Note: Clayton's OB/GYN experts state that LO's medical visits that could be verified were all Telehealth visits until November 14.

# data[].attributes.body
July 23: Laura's new attorney tells Woodnick in an email that he has seen the photos of the two fetal sacs and the photos is dated July 23.

October 16: Laura took a blood test to check HCG levels. Her HCG was 102. In a doctors visit note in November, Laura told the doctor that she was told in October that this result would not be indicative of a viable pregnancy.

November 9: Laura told a doctor at MomDoc that she had bleeding for about two days (stating it was similar to a period)

November 14: Laura went to a doctors appointment where she told the doctor this whole story. They then had her take 2 pregnancy tests (according to Laura in her affidavit) where they confirmed she was not pregnant.

This doctor's visit note had some interesting notes:

LMP (Last Menstrual Period) - November 9, 2023

Chief Complaint: Possible Pregnancy/Annual Exam

G:2 (meaning two pregnancies in her lifetime)

P: 0-0-2-0 (meaning her two pregnancies resulted in: 0 pregnancies that were full term, 0 pregnancies that were preterm, 2 previous abortions, 0 living children)

SAB x1 (this means that one of the abortions mentioned above was actually a miscarriage)

The purpose of this visit was "possible pregnancy" meaning they were going to be determining if she was pregnant at this visit. Had Laura tested positive for pregnancy during this visit, her G/P would be G:3 P: 0-0-2-0.

In the visual observation of Laura, the doctor does not mention that she is "visibly pregnant".

I (Hay Bales) am a nurse and if I was assessing a patient for possible pregnancy, I would definitely indicate on the visual observation that patient was visibly pregnant.

This also shows that she only self-reported two pregnancies to the MomDoc medical staff. One pregnancy that ended with an abortion and the other pregnancy ended with a miscarriage.

Previous "Pregnancies"

Victim 0, MM (pregnancy 1), MM (pregnancy 2), GG, CE

This medical note does not prove pregnancy or miscarriage. Laura still has not provided diagnosis of pregnancy by a medical professional.

A doctor would have to confirm pregnancy before writing on a visit note that a patient did miscarry. Otherwise, it is patient-reported.

# data[].attributes.body
Pregnancy Timeline 3 (Now From GW Denial of Motion to Compel Lunch):

May 20: Date of Conception (LO claims this was penetration without consent in her March 1 Deposition).
There are texts and emails from LO contradicting this claim (both the SA and the penetrative sex allegation)

July 23: DG (LO's Lawyer) claims that there are dated photos of expelled fetal matter with this date (LO earlier claimed she sent these photos to her sister, but had not disclosed a date at that time)

October 16: LO takes an HCG test and has elevated HCG of 102, which could indicate 4-week pregnancy. Later, DG lawyer states that this could be the result of HCG levels dropping after miscarriage.

So, by this timeline, she had to have miscarried around July 23 (so within 9 weeks of her pregnancy). This may not require medical intervention (although it is highly recommended to consult with a doctor after this occurs to ensure that all fetal matter has dispelled and there are no complications). However, she claims that a telemedical provider saw those images and told her she had miscarried, so then...what's her argument for continuing with the case? Additionally, this timeline completely spits in the face of all her testimony during the IAH and her December 8 Medium article, where she claimed in both situations that she was pregnant.

# data[].attributes.body
Pregnancy Timeline 2 (Maintained from February 21, 2024 to April 11 Denial from GW for Motion To Compel Lunch):

May 20: Date of Conception (JD claims this was penetration without consent in her March 1 Deposition).
There are texts and emails from LO contradicting this claim (both the SA and the penetrative sex allegation)

September 2 - November 2: JD miscarries without her knowledge according to her CK lawyer's comments in the February 21 Status Conference Hearing

October 16: JD takes an HCG test and has elevated HCG of 102, which could indicate 4-week pregnancy (which is way too low if she wants to claim that she believed that she was still pregnant in October)

So, by this timeline, she had to have miscarried between September 2 - November 2 (when she was 15-24 weeks pregnant) - if she wanted to claim she thought she was still pregnant in October due to elevated HCG levels at that, she would be claiming 21 week pregnancy, and this would be a stillbirth by Arizona law (20 weeks or later requires a death certificate). If she wanted to claim that she miscarried earlier but just thought she was pregnant in October, this would mean she never dispelled the fetal matter, which could potentially lead to sepsis due to retaining fetal matter and would require medical intervention for removal.

# data[].attributes.body
Pregnancy Timeline 1 (Maintained Until February 21, 2024 Status Conference):

May 20: Date of Conception

June 1: LO emails CE saying she is pregnant

June 17: LO +HPT in front of Clayton

July 7: LO claims to have an ultrasound showing twins, that is later shared with Clayton by one of her lawyers

August 1: LO files Petition to Establish Paternity

August 23: LO files to Establish a Parenting Plan

September 18: LO goes to media anonymously

September 22: LO anonymous woman on reddit

October 6: Paternity Test 1 - Little To No Fetal DNA

October 11: LO release video sonogram (FAKE)

October 24: LO has Baby bump in court

November 2: LO states she is 24 weeks pregnant, and saw her OBGYN last Friday

December 6: Paternity Test 3 - Little To No Fetal DNA (Test 2 got lost)

December 8: LO publishes a Medium article

December 28: Requests motion to dismiss paternity case as she is "no longer pregnant"

So, by this timeline, she had to have miscarried between October 28 - December 28 (when she was 24 - 32 weeks pregnant) - this would be a stillbirth by Arizona law (20 weeks or later requires a death certificate) and would require medical intervention

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Motion for Joint Hearing Pursuant to Rule 5(A)(4) (OOP CASE)

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Motion for Joint Hearing Pursuant to Rule 5(A)(4) (OOP CASE)

# data[].attributes.body
The Maricopa County Family Court docket shows that Laura has retained new counsel after her former lawyer, Cory Keith, withdrew. Her new lawyer is David Gingras

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Filed by Gregg Woodnick. This motion seeks to have the court rule if Laura's protective order against Clayton can be dismissed due to being founded on both implicit and explicit fraud. The motion seeks for the judge to conduct a joint hearing and order relief to Clayton as the court deems just.

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Motion for Joint Hearing Pursuant to Rule 5(A)(4) (PATERNITY CASE)

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Motion for Joint Hearing Pursuant to Rule 5(A)(4) (PATERNITY CASE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: Image taken from Clayton’s appearance on Nick Viall’s Podcast

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Objection to Petitioners Motion to Dismiss Petition

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Objection to Petitioners Motion to Dismiss Petition

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Respondent's Reply to Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Respondent's Reply to Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing

# data[].attributes.headline
LO/CE: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 26

# data[].attributes.subject
LO/CE: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 26

# data[].attributes.body
Dave Neal breaks the story that on October 11th, Owens had circulated her alleged sonogram video to the media, which was later proved to be an edited 6 year old sonogram from an unrelated Youtuber. There were several things off about the ultrasound video, which are shown on Neal's video.

Owens later claims Greg Gillespie hacked into her account and released the fake sonogram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking Bachelor News: FULL EVIDENCE That Bachelor Clayton Echard Is Victim To A FAKE Sonogram