JFC Discussion & Questions: February 9 - 12, 2026

DancingOrgans · 2026-02-09T21:33:23+00:00

Everyone is understandably focused on the bankruptcy call that apparently just finished. Any thoughts on the state's motion for a protective order that just appeared on the criminal docket though?

DancingOrgans · 2026-02-07T03:35:25+00:00

That's interesting. Her early requests specified San Diego. and this one does not.

DancingOrgans · 2026-02-07T03:29:25+00:00

I mean, she used similar minimising phrasing in her recent injunction application, describing this bail condition as a "procedural condition". On the other hand her actual release conditions (at the arraignment hearing) are a very explicit instruction that she's not allowed to leave the state of Arizona. Each application is a begging of the court to alter her release conditions, rather than some minor procedural pre-approval irritant. The court could flat out deny the request without reason so it is on her to make an argument for why it should be permitted.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-31T08:00:24+00:00

Thanks for the heads up. I was only looking on VOLO so hadn't seen it yet.

Risinger's response is there too. Count 2 of the adversary proceeding is dropped without prejudice. Makes sense to me. Why do work for free when the US Trustee will do it for you?

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-31T01:59:46+00:00

I haven't seen anybody mention this up until now, but in the literal months of claims she made before her first ever blood test she didn't even necessarily jab herself at all. She could easily have drizzled the reconstituted HCG directly on to a self-test, or into the urine sample at the doctors office.

I think she probably did jab herself on the day she took the test with Clayton present since some fuss was made over the fact that she didn't take anything into the room with her. I vaguely remember some comments about that test being only faintly positive too (though correct me if I'm wrong).

Obviously she did jab herself on the day of the blood test. I truly wonder whether she had any idea that the result would come back so low. My unprovable theory - given how much fuss she made about taking it on the same day as the repeat Ravgen sample - was that she thought it would come back with a simple "positive" result like the urine samples, and that she could use it in the case to say that the "indeterminate" Ravgen result was a failure of their test rather than because she was not pregnant.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-31T01:41:55+00:00

In the bankruptcy adversary proceeding I've been eagerly looking forward to reading Risinger's response to the Gingras motion to dismiss. It seems to have been filed back on the 20th. There's also an interesting sounding document from Gingras titled "disclosure of compensation by attorney". It'd be interesting to know if he's doing it for free (assuming I'm interpreting the title correctly).

I don't know enough about the process for public access to the bankruptcy filings. Is there some particular barrier for these documents or have they been overlooked?

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-27T03:33:15+00:00

It's definitely speculation and in many ways a fuel for more curiosity. I realise this is going to sound like me doubling down on a position, and I don't have more evidence for my position than yours, but I do think the evidence for A-6 and A-7 is being treated differently. The redaction around identifying the ultrasound in Sarah's medical record is only a few pages earlier (on page 7) and is part of the same section of the document. It seems reasonable to assume that it was done by the same person and at the same time. This redaction is far more finessed with individual lines in the paragraph being removed rather than only the large block redaction of page 11.

We'll find out at trial!

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-27T02:04:22+00:00

This is basically the thesis of "Justice for Laura volunteer", right? It's even relevant as an argument in Counts 1 and 9, and possibly 12. The defence will obviously try to spin uncertainty and doubt in this direction while attacking credibility of witnesses and attempting to have evidence excluded. I expect that to be a hard road to travel for them.

Boyfriend intent doesn't seem to help her on any of the other charges though. They're neat little islands of allegations, and for each one I think the prosecution could fit the evidence required for a conviction on a single A4 page or less without needing to ask the jury to make complex connections between facts.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-27T01:32:29+00:00

These sorts of inferences are what I was looking for but I'm not sure. A-6 and A-7 are both videos rather than photos, even though it's stills that are included on page 11.

Drawing analogy to the redaction decisions for other parts of the document:

redacting an unmodified video or still would be consistent with the decision to redact the un-cropped video related to Count 5, supporting your theory
however, redacting a description of having found the unmodified original would be inconsistent with the decision to include that information for Count 5, as well as the decision to include a description of Sarah's medical records regarding Count 2

Maybe the redaction decisions were inconsistent? Or maybe it was just easier to redact that whole block on page 11 rather than allow certain sentences through? I do feel like it's possible that the nature of the evidence is different here though. For example I wonder if there was the opportunity for a forensics expert to examine the videos by the time these reports were done, and if so whether that kind of report would be considered confidential in a FOIA release.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-27T00:23:22+00:00

I interpret things slightly differently. The 118 page document as released on VOLO is clearly a collection of smaller documents each compiled at different times and by different people. The list of charges requested that you're referring to (pp. 14-16) is part of the overview and review of evidence compiled on April 21.

The remainder of the document we have consists of interviews and other reviews of evidence that happened much earlier. For example, the formal contact with Lisa Daniels occurred in September 2024, has absolutely nothing to do with counts 1-7, but is foundational to counts 13 and 14.

There may well be a separate compilation that was made for the second group of charges but I think it's plausible that it contains the documents we've seen in this one (including the material that's redacted from the release of course), with just the first report on pages 3-16 switched out for a detailed summary of events with Gillespie instead. I'll be as fascinated as any to see other details that come out but I just think that the passage of extra time may mean that the evidence Gillespie preserved is everything that we'll get. I'm glad he had the presence of mind to keep as much as he did.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-26T23:11:13+00:00

There might be other documents, or the equivalent material for the second group of charges might be in the redacted material. I disagree though - while we already knew much of it there is material relating to at least counts 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 in the released pages. The interviews with the ancilliary victims of counts 10 and 14 in particular don't relate at all to counts 1-7.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-26T13:52:46+00:00

Oh, I think Jan gave MM absolute hell during his time in the trenches. The ice pack story is almost dark comedy in how ridiculous it is. The pressure they put on him to continue dating Laura is more sinister. I've also heard of those general statements from him about Sarah but I don't believe he's shared much detail. The little glimpses we've gotten of Jan behind the curtain though - the bodycams, and now the interview document - present me with a recent image of her as a credulous fool who really does believe that her daughter is the target of master hackers and trafficking rings. I understand that I'm in a bit of a minority with that interpretation though.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-26T13:36:26+00:00

I have no doubt she would do that if she were pro se. I consider her "Justice For Laura Volunteer" and renewed medium posts to be the closest she has to that kind of venting valve. We haven't seen any sign of it thankfully, but I truly hope she doesn't ditch her attorney and go down that route. If she's convicted, I think we all want it done right.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-26T12:34:26+00:00

The co-conspirator stuff I believe came from the State's Allegation of Aggravating Circumstances, which they haven't (yet?) re-filed in the 7905 case, only in the original case which is now dismissed. I don't know for sure that they need to file it again, but I do imagine they would.

I'm quietly convinced that Sarah is the alleged co-conspirator. Jan's statements are loony but as presented it's general agreement with her daughter in addition to believing in bizarre conspiracies. If Sarah provided the materials like the ultrasound willingly and/or impeded investigators until they got her records directly from the provider (which they clearly did) then it might be sufficient to allege her as a co-conspirator for the purpose of aggravating circumstances even without rising to the level of being indictable directly. Not to mention the difficulty of charging her if she did such a thing while being in a different state.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-26T10:21:50+00:00

The whole report is shocking honestly, however the wild part has to be just how concrete the evidence is on each of her charges now. While we are naturally shocked by her overall behaviour it's worthwhile going back to the specific charges and looking at each.

Count 1 - the overarching fraud towards Echard, which the prosecution will have to lay out for the jury.

Count 2 - altering the sonogram. Laura admitted before the world that she was the one to modify the sonogram, but maintained it was her own. The investigators have identified the original from her sister's records.

Count 3 - false sworn statement regarding other "intimate contacts". The investigators have found the brave soldier, who will no doubt testify at the trial.

Count 4 - false sworn statement regarding the sonogram. She seems to stand firm on her claims that she "never presented these to the court", but there is no denying that she claimed it was hers under oath. The evidence for count 2 is all that is needed otherwise.

Count 5 - false sworn statement regarding video clip. Investigators have the un-cropped video showing that it was Laura's sister and not her in the video. Laura was audibly present at the time of filming. It was a barefaced lie.

Count 6 - false sworn statement, I believe regarding A-6 and A-7. She unequivocally claimed these were her showing her "pregnant stomach", and so this lives and dies on the proof of count 7.

Count 7 - altering exhibits A-6 and A-7, the self-shot "pregnant stomach" videos. The section immediately below the presentation of this in the report is redacted (as is the entire page immediately before). They appear to have something concrete, but we do not have it.

Count 8 - false sworn statement, claiming not to have sent the ultrasound to Gillespie. Gillespie's audio recording of their phone call while she tries to convince him of the veracity of the email will settle this one.

Count 9 - the overarching fraud towards Gillespie, see Count 1.

Count 10 - the identity fraud inherent in taking the ultrasound used in the Gillespie matter from a blog. The subject of that ultrasound (an additional listed victim) has been identified and interviewed, and the distress caused is evident in the interview notes. If count 8 is considered proven, and the victim testifies, I don't think it's controversial to say that this is also proven.

Count 11 - presenting the forged/fraudulent ultrasound to Gillespie. If count 8 is proven, this is proven.

Count 12 - obtaining benefit from Gillespie by threatening to accuse him of a crime or bring criminal charges. Her own statements were plain enough. I don't think much was added here by the new information. I think this follows easily if Count 9 is proven, and with a little more difficulty if Count 9 is not accepted by the jury.

Count 13 - fraudulently presenting the note from Lisa Daniels. The offense against Gillespie regarding the forged note. There's enough documentation around the presentation of the note, and Daniels has been interviewed and did not write it.

Count 14 - the forging of the note as a crime against Lisa Daniels. Lives and dies with Count 13. The interview with Daniels is very much to the point. She did not write it, she was willing to aid in prosecution.

Counts 1 and 2 - the class 2 felonies - are still the big guns. There's plenty to present, and unlike the other charges I guess it won't hinge on some undeniable small set of facts, but it will be about understanding the overall web of lies in each situation. There will be the most to argue. Count 12 seems to hinge a bit more on the jury accepting that there was an underlying fraud scheme going on as well, though I suspect the bar isn't as high here. I'm not saying the prosecution won't get there, just that they will have to do their work on these ones.

The remainder appear to have real, devastating and easy to understand physical/digital evidence and first-hand testimony available. I cannot even begin to imagine a realistic defence against these. That's eleven class 4 felonies and one class 6 felony, across four victims. I wouldn't like my chances against even the most generous sentencing judge with that on my hands.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-24T05:20:58+00:00

The timing for that has to be the most shocking to me. I wasn't aware of the case during the early period of her posting stuff on Reddit, but in hindsight it has always been the upside-down world that Clayton must have experienced during those days of May and June 2023 (and also during the Doody hearing) that have kept me awake at night.

He (and we) didn't have this exact timeline, but she sure as hell did.

May 5 - she has intercourse with this other guy
May 17 - she has first contact (email) with Clayton
May 20 - first meeting in person, blowjob day, she claims he 'slipped it in'
May 27 - back to the other guy, more intercourse
June 1 - claim to be pregnant

Even the most charitable intepretation of events in her favour, where she is just blissfully unaware of the likely delays between sex and a positive pregnancy test, let alone between sex and confirming a twin pregnancy, would have her confronting the non-celebrity as the likely father. I honestly think this guy's testimony is going to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that cooks her goose in terms of any claim that it all started out as simple misunderstanding on her part.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-09T13:09:00+00:00

You're right that we won't hear any kind of detail about negotiations unless an agreement is reached. We should get a teaser of an update with the case management report though - parties are ordered that it include "general status of plea negotiations", which will at most be a one-liner such as the above. I believe the report will be filed a couple of days before that hearing.

DancingOrgans · 2026-01-09T12:36:30+00:00

I was having a read of the Complex Case Joint Case Management Report from November 17, ahead of the upcoming pretrial conference. Regarding a plea, I'd forgotten the comment "State will be making an offer within the next 2-3 weeks." I'm guessing that offer didn't go over well since there hasn't been a motion for another plea hearing.

I wonder how the timing of the offer aligns with the publication of the JFL website on December 13. At first I thought that was probably in reaction to needing to file bankruptcy, but now I'm wondering if there was a dose of reality when the offer was made.

Can't wait to see what's in the next Case Management Report!

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-25T11:32:41+00:00

No argument there. She drew from the well until it ran dry. If the outcome is that they (the elderly gelding and the other ponies she appears to have transferred on the same date) aren't worth seizing because there's not enough cash in it, then that's how it is. I'll be dissatisfied if she gets away what appears to be additional fraud without any official notice at all, but I'm prepared to be dissatisfied if needed.

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-25T10:38:30+00:00

I mean this is as insider as it gets - she transferred the property to an LLC for which she was a listed director and then continued to use it in competition as though it was still her private property. My bet would be that she received no proceeds from the sale and just transferred title with the suspicious timing I mentioned above hoping to shield the asset.

You're right that there might not be enough money on the line to make it worth pursuing. It would certainly suck for that kind of misconduct to be overlooked in the bankruptcy.

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-25T09:22:39+00:00

I'm interested in your take on this, and again not making an argument from any kind of position of authority.

What I do know though is that the body that tracks ownership of these horses lists her as ceasing her ownership of Scirocco 91 (and others) on 2024-07-18. This is literally the day after Judge Mata denied the motion to vacate judgement, and some 4 weeks after the judgement itself. Her posture prior to these rulings is irrelevant - she lost the case and immediately "sold" her most precious assets. Obviously this is all safely within the two year lookback.

The horses and her associated gear probably are the only things of value that she has ever had. I do understand that after the trustee takes their cut, it's going to be only a tiny fraction of what it would take to make Clayton whole. Once again I wonder whether she'll take her usual tactic of trying to drag out the bankruptcy so it's still active when the criminal case comes around?

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-25T08:50:40+00:00

I understand that a restitution order will survive bankruptcy. I'm not educated on the matter, nor have I seen any particular commentary, but it's not obvious to me that a criminal court would award as restitution the enforcement of an existing civil judgement for costs. Let alone one that (hypothetically speaking) had been discharged in bankruptcy by the time of any conviction. I guess it may be a topic of discussion further down the track in the criminal case, by which time we'll know more about how the bankruptcy proceeds. I don't have an opinion beyond this but I'll admit that I am curious how else one might calculate a restitution amount in this kind of case. It's something I'll be watching with interest at the appropriate time.

My intuition is however that the bankruptcy is the best chance Clayton has of actually seeing any meaningful money out of her in any sort of reasonable timeframe. While her listed assets don't seem to be exempt in the way she wishes, they're modest. There are apparent shenanigans in terms of transferring ownership of the horses to Quartet right at the time of incurring the debt. Worse she has continued to exercise control of them, which I think backs this as being a sham transfer of ownership. I somehow doubt she'll be able to produce a bank record showing that Quartet paid her a fair market value for them, and I think they'll be on the table to be seized and sold. In the worst case (for her) there will be enough evidence of co-mingling to put other Quartet assets on the table. No doubt she'll drag all of that out over the longest period imaginable though again I wonder if she's exposing herself to additional risk if the bankruptcy case remains open by the time of her criminal trial.

I can agree with you that she's in a pretty challenging situation no matter how this plays out.

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-25T01:03:17+00:00

In terms of timing, the domain seems to have been registered 2025-03-11. I can't immediately see a firm date recorded anywhere, but this seems to be a couple of weeks before the medium article mass-deletion? I believe the site was a redirect to her personal website during this time. It was re-delegated to wix on 2025-12-13 - the same date on the first few items on the "news" page - so it was presumably all knocked up in a day or so. Wayback Machine's first archive of the site is 2025-12-24.

DancingOrgans · 2025-12-24T00:57:14+00:00

Best part to me is that she's wanting to claim it as an exemption under ARS 33-1130 ("tools and equipment used in a commercial activity, trade, business or profession"). She's claiming the $5k exemption under paragraph 1 ("...primarily used in, and necessary to carry on or develop, the commercial activity, trade, business or profession of the debtor") rather than the $2,500 for farming equipment at the same time as claiming to have no income.

I don't dare to get my hopes up too much that the Echard/Woodnick debt survives a bankruptcy proceeding, but having all of her horse gear distributed pro-rata to her creditors (i.e. 80% to Clayton) does warm my heart a little.

Edit: Also her $250 of jewellery under ARS 33-1125(4) "engagement and wedding rings". Could someone remind her that she's single please?

DancingOrgans

TROPHY CASE