FULL COURT VIDEO: Harassment Order Granted Against Laura Owens 11-2-2023

Added: 2026-05-06

[00:00:13]Shoot.

[00:00:38]All right.

[00:00:40]Thank you. May be seated.

[00:01:09]All right. So, good morning. I'm Commissioner Vitz and um we're here today in the matter of Clayton Decker versus Laura Owens CV2023053952.

[00:01:22]We'll start by having everyone uh state their names. Miss Arena, if you want to begin.

[00:01:27]>> Good morning, your honor. Danger Arena, Council for the Plaintiff, Clayton Eard.

[00:01:30]I'm also accompanied by Isabelle Rainey from my office who's an associate.

[00:01:35]Mr. Eard, >> thank you.

[00:01:41]>> Good morning, your honor. Attorney Joshua Lopez representing Laura Owens, who's present before the court on Microsoft Teams.

[00:01:47]>> Thank you, Mr. Owens. If you can say your name for me.

[00:01:50]>> Laura Owens.

[00:01:52]>> All right. Thank you. All right. So this is the continuation of the contested hearing that the uh previously held on October 24th.

[00:02:05]Um before we start, I guess we'll discuss that there was a request to have the hearing uh not uh put on live stream. Uh the court granted that. Uh then there was an objection to that file. the court had granted it prior to the objection.

[00:02:25]Uh but I have re I have reviewed the objection. At this time I'm still ordering that the live stream not be active during the hearing.

[00:02:36]The courtroom is still open. Uh anyone who wants to come to the courthouse can view the hearing uh uh in the courthouse, but I'm not uh having my hearing live streamed.

[00:02:48]Um, we also had a notice of supplemental allegations uh filed on October 31st. Um, Lopez, did you have an opportunity to review that?

[00:03:01]>> I I did have an opportunity to review it and I'd like to object on a handful of different reasons, your honor. And if you'd like, I can present those now.

[00:03:09]>> Sure. Um, so in regard to the amended amendment, well, in regard to the amendment, your honor, generally what happens in these order of protection hearings or injunction against harassment hearings, the petitioner is able to amend their petition at the beginning of the hearing before we've even started to determine what the scope of the hearing should be in regard to. Um, in this particular instance, Clayton did not have those in his petition and we are now four-fifths of the way through his petition. Not only that, we've started the hearing and he's ended his case and chief. We've already presented now we he's ended his testimony. He's ended entering his exhibits. We've moved on to the defense case and chief and we're four fifths again. We're four fifths away through the hearing. If this was all complete on the same day, he wouldn't get that opportunity to now amend his petition once we're already about to be at the end of the hearing. Just because he's now hired counsel doesn't give him a new opportunity to now amend the petition or add exhibits or add testimony. That would essentially be restarting this whole hearing over again, opening opening up uh him uh the petitioner to be able to testify and then cross-examination and then we would get a chance to respond. That that wouldn't make any sense. It's too late now. He shouldn't be able to amend the petition at this point.

[00:04:36]>> If you wanted to be here, >> I do your honor and >> you can remain seated over the microphone anyway. So, >> whatever the court's preference is, of course. Um, Jon, with respect to our request to amend pursuant to rule 38D, it's our position that we are able to amend at this point in time, Mr. Eard has already provided testimony to support these new allegations in his case and chief. I believe the purpose of rule 38 is in part for judicial economy.

[00:05:01]As the court's well aware, Mr. Eard could proceed with filing an additional injunction against harassment at a later date. So, we're really just doing this to ensure that the court has all the necessary allegations to proceed with making a determination in this hearing today. Um, I don't believe it's prejuditial whatsoever. Again, the testimony has already been provided to support these new allegations and I think it's important that they be added so that the court can make a determination today and Mr. Eert doesn't have to come back another time uh with a new injunction.

[00:05:32]>> All right. Thank you. Um, so when I first received it, I was concerned that we were, you know, just adding stuff at the last second. I do think that these are just um making more specific allegations that we did discuss that Mr. Lopez did have an opportunity to cross-examine him about because they were based on exhibits that were already admitted uh and have already been admitted at this time. So, I will allow the amended allegations at this time over the objection. Um, but I do have the same concerns Mr. Lopez expressed, which is we're not restarting this hearing. Um, and so the reason we reset it was so that um, Mr. Lopez could uh, ask Miss Owens questions about their exhibits and admit whatever exhibits they were choosing to admit. Um, I had given him an opportunity to give the opportunity to review those exhibits prior to those being uh, admitted um, since he hadn't had an opportunity to see those. So, where we are in the case is that Miss Owens has testified primarily. Um she is going to I guess finish her testimony through whatever exhibits uh Mr. Lopez wants to admit. Um and then Mr. Arbert uh would have the opportunity to cross-examine the zones because that part he hadn't concluded yet. Um and then we would do closing arguments. So that's kind of where we are. Okay.

[00:06:56]>> Just a question your honor. I so I I understand that you're going to allow the amended petition. Um but as far as the exhibits that the petitioner was trying to supplement, those are not being included. Is that correct? He's not getting the opportunity to admit additional exhibits. Is that correct?

[00:07:13]>> I mean the I guess the only thing I have about the exhibits and I haven't seen that I haven't reviewed all of those exhibits. The only thing I don't know about any of the exhibits is if they were in response to any of the exhibits that you have, I guess, is what I I'm not >> I guess I'm not sure either. Um >> I guess that's the only thing I don't know, but um at this point I do think his, you know, case has been basically concluded.

[00:07:43]>> Okay. Um my final question is as far as this area I know indicates in the minute entry it was uh we were just going to go for 30 minutes. Is that 30 minutes um altogether? Is that 30 minutes for us to present our exhibits? Is that broken down? I I just want to make sure that I'm efficient with my time as best I can be.

[00:08:03]>> I mean ideally we're here for 30 minutes but I will extend it to 45 minutes to allow everyone to do closing. So the testimony portion uh and that would include cross- examination time would be the 30 minutes.

[00:08:14]>> Okay. Uh is it do I have 20 or is this like 15 and 15? I just want to make >> 20 is fine and then 15 you know 10 minutes to cross exam and if we need to 15 minutes for closings or whatever around time.

[00:08:27]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:08:29]>> M with respect to the exhibits the supplementals they are for the most part impeachment exhibits. uh with respect to Miss Owens's prior testimony. So that's what they would be using for and so I guess to answer the court's question, they are responsive to uh defendants exhibits here. So it would be utilized for cross-examination. That's what the supplemental exhibits are for.

[00:08:52]And I mean I think you could use them for impatron purposes if if you felt they uh would be relevant. So I just don't know if she has them to look out to.

[00:09:01]>> They were disclosed to Mr. Lopez on I believe yesterday morning.

[00:09:06]>> I was able to send them to my client, your honor.

[00:09:07]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:09:08]>> And your honor, one last thing. Um while I understand and respect the court's decision regarding the courtroom being closed for live stream, I do have concerns regarding the fact that Miss Owens is present virtually and who's present, you know, in in her household and who else is being able to listen to this. My client unfortunately with this hearing not being able to be live streamed is being procluded from having any of his family, friends, or any other persons that may want to listen in in support of him from being able to be from being able to do that. So, I would just ask that the court at least confirm with Miss Owens that no one is present.

[00:09:42]I know this is hard to confirm, but uh that's one of our concerns.

[00:09:49]>> Okay. I'm I'm not sure. I mean, obviously his family can be here and I'm not sure he looks like he has some people here, but um Miss Owens, is anyone else with you?

[00:09:58]>> No, I'm in a cassita by myself.

[00:10:02]>> Okay.

[00:10:02]>> I can also pay on if you want to see if they want to see that nobody else is present if that would be helpful.

[00:10:08]>> Okay.

[00:10:09]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:10:11]>> All right. So, Mr. Co, you may proceed.

[00:10:14]>> Uh yes, your honor. I want to turn the court's attention to, and I'll jump around here a little bit, but exhibit uh 38.

[00:10:25]And your honor, do you have that available? It's a video. Uh do you need a USB?

[00:10:31]>> You can hook up to that to your computer to show it. I can make you a presenter.

[00:10:36]>> Uh I can play it on my computer. Um is that what you mean? Because I I can I can bring it up there.

[00:10:43]Yeah, if you want to present it, um, then I can make you a presenter and you can Well, actually, because I think you need the little hookup thing to that.

[00:10:51]>> Yeah, there's some technical difficulties. I want to either say last time or in a different court. I could try and do that. I don't have the >> best if you can bring in those hookup things.

[00:11:06]>> What was that, your honor? Sorry, >> I'm trying to get my J to bring in the little extra extension thing. I think you mean and I think they just hook up to the thing and then you can hook them up to the your computer as well.

[00:11:44]But then I think they need to hook up to that.

[00:11:50]>> I don't have like another cord that needs to be broken.

[00:11:55]>> I'm not 100% but it I think there's a cord already there. Maybe >> there should be one for this um I'm gonna try to see your A or B, but if that doesn't work, then the other thing I can do is just plug it directly into my computer.

[00:12:32]It working?

[00:12:33]>> I mean, I made you a presenter, but I don't see anything currently. I just see you right now, but if you I don't know if you want to try to >> Okay, let me just try one more.

[00:13:01]How about now?

[00:13:06]Are you playing something or?

[00:13:08]>> Not yet, but I wasn't sure if it would just show my screen.

[00:13:11]>> Now I'm playing something.

[00:13:15]>> Not seeing anything.

[00:13:18]I still don't see you.

[00:13:19]>> Would it be okay if I just brought my computer up?

[00:13:23]>> Um, sure. As long as everyone can >> Okay. Want to come up and see it too.

[00:13:32]>> Okay. Uh Lori, do you have in front of you an exhibit uh that's marked 38?

[00:13:39]>> Um I believe I know the one that you're referring to as I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's the video of my pregnant stomach. Is that correct?

[00:13:49]>> Yeah. Is this an accurate video of you?

[00:13:53]>> Um so it's actually not showing up at all on um on mine. Um your honor, I can see you and I can see um Mr. Eckard's council, but I can't see my attorney or anything else.

[00:14:06]>> You can't see me?

[00:14:07]>> No.

[00:14:08]>> If you can maybe just put it near the We might be able to see it. Just on the screen there.

[00:14:12]>> She's saying she can't see all the participants.

[00:14:15]>> She can see you. Well, can you see him now?

[00:14:17]>> I I can I can only see um you and I can see Mr. Eard's council.

[00:14:22]>> I mean, I can maybe unmake you a presenter because I think maybe that's what happened is anything now?

[00:14:38]>> Um, I cannot >> Can you click something on your screen like participants or is there a different view?

[00:14:46]>> Let me see. Are you?

[00:14:49]>> Uh, >> no. Nothing else. Um, nobody else is showing up.

[00:15:02]>> Okay. Despite you being able to see me, >> you have in front of you exhibit 38.

[00:15:08]>> Uh, the video of my pregnant stomach.

[00:15:11]>> Yes. What is this?

[00:15:13]Um, it's a video that I took of my pregnant stomach because Mr. Eard asked me um to take it for him so he could verify that I was indeed pregnant.

[00:15:24]>> Okay. And is this video an accurate reflection of what you looked like recently?

[00:15:29]>> Um, in September, I believe.

[00:15:31]>> And is this a video that Mr. Eert asked you to send to him?

[00:15:35]>> Yes, it is.

[00:15:36]>> Was that to show proof that you were in fact pregnant?

[00:15:40]>> Yes.

[00:15:41]>> Okay. Governor, I'd like to move into evidence exhibit 38.

[00:15:46]>> There objection. I don't believe sufficient foundation was laid. Also, this video does not have any time or date stamp on it to be inherently reliable.

[00:15:57]I mean, I can't see it, but >> is there any range honor for the video to be played on the Microsoft Teams? So, that's what I think we were trying to have them do with that uh the hookup thing, but I I don't know specifically how to do it. Beth, do you know how to hook it up or No, >> I do not, but I can ask next door.

[00:16:47]Let me try to make you a presenter again.

[00:17:11]I hit play a couple times if nothing's happening.

[00:17:14]>> Okay.

[00:17:26]>> All right. Do you just want to lay a little more foundation for the exhibit itself?

[00:17:31]>> Uh, yeah. So, Mr. Eard, when did you say that you took this video?

[00:17:35]>> Um, I took this video in September. Um, and when I did send it to Mr. record on that date via email. Um I also sent him a screenshot um that showed um like if you scroll up on a video and it it can show exactly when it was taken, where it was taken um to prove that it wasn't something like I had edited or or taken prior to that.

[00:17:59]>> And why did you take that video?

[00:18:01]>> I took that video because he had asked me for a video to show him that I was pregnant. Um Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry.

[00:18:11]the video that you submitted um and that we're requesting the court enter into evidence. Is this in this is the video that you're talking about?

[00:18:18]>> Yes, it is. I was able to pull up 38.

[00:18:20]Yes, that's the video.

[00:18:24]>> At this time, you're requesting that this be entered into evidence.

[00:18:29]>> Again, I reiterate my objection, your honor. I don't believe sufficient foundation has been laid. She says September. I don't have the date in September the year. Uh there's no proof she sent this to Mr. record. And furthermore, we don't have proof that it hasn't been edited.

[00:18:44]>> Your honor, she's testified that this was the video that she sent it in September. She sent it because Mr. Edgard had indicated she should send it to him uh to show that she was pregnant.

[00:18:54]The foundation worried she's testified to all of this.

[00:18:59]>> Does the video that you're uh looking at 38, is that a true and accurate depiction of the video that you made in September?

[00:19:06]>> Yes, it is.

[00:19:08]All right. How about the uh exhibit over the injection?

[00:19:15]>> Was it working?

[00:19:23]>> Mhm.

[00:19:31]>> Okay.

[00:19:35]Uh Miss Owens, I'd like to take your attention to exhibit 40. Can you please explain what these are?

[00:19:44]>> These are text messages that Clayton sent me um from the time when he found out that I was pregnant through um I believe it was the beginning of July.

[00:19:56]Um, and these were uh text messages, for example, that that showed that that um I believe it was the second to last one shows, I'm sorry, this made it harder. I wanted you to come over to confirm what I was doubting. And it did confirm that.

[00:20:10]So, I don't see you as a liar anymore, proving that I had gone over to his house and taken a pregnancy test that he had purchased in front of him and that he knew I was pregnant.

[00:20:21]>> I'm going to object at this time. She's reading exhibits that have not been admitted into evidence. more foundation needs to be laid as far as I'm concerned.

[00:20:28]>> Yeah, I think that she's just trying to explain what these are. Um, and she is >> if you can explain that without reading the whole exhibit. So, >> okay.

[00:20:39]Okay. Without these text messages that Clayton had sent to you?

[00:20:45]>> Yes, they are.

[00:20:46]Is the phone number that is indicated at the top of each one of these text messages a number that you know to be Clayton?

[00:20:56]>> Yes, it is.

[00:20:57]>> Right. Was that a phone number that Clayton had texted you pre from previously?

[00:21:02]>> Yes.

[00:21:04]>> Do you know if Clayton had changed his number since he um had texted you from that number previously?

[00:21:11]>> No, he had not to my knowledge.

[00:21:14]>> Okay.

[00:21:15]And uh these text messages uh were they sent to you during the time periods uh between um when you became pregnant to when this petition uh against you for this injunction against harassment was filed?

[00:21:31]>> Yes.

[00:21:32]>> Are these accurate um reflections of those text messages? Have they been altered in any way?

[00:21:38]>> They have not been altered in any way.

[00:21:40]>> Okay. Your honor, I'd like to admit into evidence exhibit 40.

[00:21:45]>> Any objection?

[00:21:46]>> Sir, I am objecting for the record. I think there's a completeness issue here.

[00:21:49]These text messages have been altered.

[00:21:51]As the court can see, these text messages only include the statements uh that Miss Owens wants to include here, not the context surrounding the text messages. I also believe that there hasn't been sufficient foundation laid with respect to the actual dates that these text messages span.

[00:22:09]All right, pause at 40 over objection.

[00:22:17]>> All right, I'd like to turn your attention now to exhibit 47. Do you have exhibit 47 in front of you?

[00:22:23]>> Yes, I do.

[00:22:26]>> And what is this exhibit? This is uh an email I got from Clayton on September 17th saying that he was unbothered by me going to the media about the situation.

[00:22:40]>> Okay. Now, uh you said when was this when was this email sent to you?

[00:22:52]>> September 17th.

[00:22:55]>> And it was your understanding that it was sent for Mr. Eard?

[00:22:58]>> Yes. Correct.

[00:22:59]>> Okay. And what was this email in response to?

[00:23:04]>> Um, this was in response to me saying that I uh I had told him that if he didn't uh continue to participate in the paternity case, that I felt like I was going to need to go to the press because I thought that would pressure him to come up with a parenting.

[00:23:20]>> Your honor, she's providing a narrative that's not part of this exhibit. Um, again, this is a completeness issue here. she is cutting out the portion she wants and leaving out the context which would be the email that she sent him that he's responding to.

[00:23:36]>> Um I'm only >> if you want to present the other half of it obviously you can. I would go ahead and uh admit exhibit what are we 40?

[00:23:44]>> Okay, at this time I'd like to admit this exhibit >> 47. It'll be admitted.

[00:23:57]Okay. Uh I'd like to turn your attention to exhibit 37.

[00:24:02]Uh this again is what is this?

[00:24:06]I do not have exhibit 37 in in front of me.

[00:24:11]>> Uh it should be a video.

[00:24:13]>> Um um can can you possibly uh give me the context for which video it is or >> uh it it should be a video that was posted by Clayton?

[00:24:28]>> Oh, okay. Yes, I know exactly the video.

[00:24:30]It was um a video that Clayton posted on October the 6th on his public.

[00:24:35]>> What What is it? What is this video?

[00:24:38]>> Um this is Mr. Eard uh telling his 200 and nearly 300,000 uh uh followers that um the results of our paternity testing were back and he was not the father when in fact um the paternity test results were were not back.

[00:24:56]>> Okay. So this you had done a paternity test.

[00:25:00]>> Uh correct.

[00:25:02]>> The results are not back.

[00:25:04]>> The results are still not back. The testing is ongoing according to the lab.

[00:25:09]>> But since that since those since the paternity test had come back, you are indicating Clayton had posted a video.

[00:25:18]>> Correct.

[00:25:19]>> Where was that video posted?

[00:25:21]>> Uh I'm I'm sorry. Did you say where or when?

[00:25:25]>> Where? Um, it was posted to his public Instagram.

[00:25:29]>> When was it posted?

[00:25:31]>> October the 6th.

[00:25:33]>> Okay. How did you get a copy of it?

[00:25:36]>> Um, I got a copy because it was um on his public Instagram.

[00:25:41]>> Okay. And was uh was this an accurate refle have you altered the video in any way?

[00:25:48]>> No, I have not.

[00:25:50]>> Okay. Your honor, I'd like to admit exhibit 37 into evidence.

[00:25:56]>> Sir, I'm objecting on relevance. This case is about Miss Owen's harassment of Mr. Eert. Mr. Eard posting anything on his private social media is not relevant to this case.

[00:26:10]>> Your honor, as part of the petition that Mr. record had written, she he had indicated that my client was defaming him when in fact my client was not defaming him and that she was harassing him by sending him emails and different text messages. I think that this is relevant to show that um not only were the text messages and emails concerning uh my client's pregnancy, paternity, but also what I had indicated in my opening and evidence that we had Miss Owens testify to that she did in fact also message Clayton to take down certain false videos or um false statements offline because she was getting harassed by his fans and followers. So this video is to show that this was the video that he had posted and the reason um she had uh continued communication with him beyond just the pregnancy and paternity was for him to take down certain videos that it wasn't for harassment and that it was for legitimate purposes.

[00:27:11]This is that video that we want to present to show why my client was communicating with Clinton regarding that specific issue.

[00:27:22]>> All right. I I'll admit the exhibit for the purpose of that limited purpose of your own permission to publish to the court.

[00:27:31]>> Okay.

[00:27:34]>> It's Friday and you know what we need on Friday? We need some good news. And who's got the good news today? I got the good news. What's that good news? Well, test results came back early and they said little to no fal DNA present. Let's go, baby. We knew. I knew that was going to happen.

[00:27:58]Five months of finally be put to rest. Thank you all to those that have supported me and waited until everything came out. Um, and false accusations in two years. I I really don't want to, you know, look ahead to next year and see what's going to happen. I think false accusations in a lifetime are not. So, thank you all.

[00:28:21]for the support, the love. This was a fine time that I learned so much about myself. And now back to the regular schedule program.

[00:28:30]Listen, it's Friday.

[00:28:38]About five more minutes.

[00:28:55]All right, I'd like to turn the court and uh Mr. Owens, I'd like to turn your attention to exhibit 44. What is exhibit 44?

[00:29:13]>> Exhibit 44 is a text message I received from Clayton on June the 4th.

[00:29:21]>> Okay. And um was this okay? This was from Is this a text message or is this an email?

[00:29:36]>> This is a text message.

[00:29:38]>> Is this an accurate reflection of the text message? Has it been altered in any way um that Clayton had sent to you?

[00:29:45]>> No, it has not been altered and yes, it is accurate.

[00:29:48]>> It I don't see a phone number in here.

[00:29:51]Was Mr. Eard's phone number saved as Clayton Eard in your phone?

[00:29:56]>> Yes, it was at that point.

[00:29:58]>> Okay. And um I'd like to admit exhibit 44 into evidence at this time.

[00:30:10]>> Any objection to 44?

[00:30:13]>> Yeah. I would just object for the record as to completeness. Again, I believe there is more to this text message than what is being disclosed in this exhibit.

[00:30:22]>> All right. I'll admit it over objection.

[00:30:30]>> Okay. Um I'd like to turn to exhibit 46.

[00:30:37]>> Miss, what is exhibit 46? Um, exhibit 46 is uh a variety of different medical providers that I saw uh confirming that I am in fact pregnant from the day I found out I was pregnant on June 1st through um I believe it was last week.

[00:30:53]It may have been uh through the week prior to that, but I have the dates on there uh through October.

[00:31:00]>> Yeah, I'm sorry.

[00:31:01]>> Okay. Were were were these picture Why were these pictures taken? Why did you save these documents? Um, I saved these documents again to try to prove to Mr. Eard that I was indeed pregnant because he uh doubted me.

[00:31:19]>> Did he ask you to send these documents?

[00:31:21]>> Yes, he did.

[00:31:23]>> To show that to show Why?

[00:31:25]>> Um, he asked for these documents to show that I was indeed um pregnant and that the pregnancy was ongoing and that it was viable.

[00:31:35]Have you altered any of these documents in a way in any way to misconrue their meaning?

[00:31:46]>> No, I have not altered them.

[00:31:48]>> And are these an accurate reflection of these documents?

[00:31:52]>> Yes, it's entirely accurate.

[00:31:55]>> They are your documents?

[00:31:57]>> Yes, they are. All right, your honor, I'd like to admit exhibit 46 into evidence.

[00:32:04]>> Your honor, I'm not objecting because I believe the court needs to see these exhibits. Um, but I will note that we have concerns regarding what they're being offered for.

[00:32:18]>> Oh, that's 46.

[00:32:41]Uh, I'd like to take your attention to exhibit 48.

[00:32:47]>> Do you have that in front of you?

[00:32:49]>> I do. Yes.

[00:32:51]>> Okay. What is it? Um, this is a letter from the Arizona Department of Real Estate that they sent me after uh looking into Mr. Eard's conduct when he was my uh realtor um showing that he was found in violation of professional conduct for not submitting an offer.

[00:33:12]>> Okay. Was this something that you received from the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

[00:33:17]>> Correct.

[00:33:18]>> Did you alter this document in any way?

[00:33:20]>> No, I did not.

[00:33:22]Did you receive it on or about September 15, 2023?

[00:33:26]>> Correct.

[00:33:28]>> Okay. Your honor, I'd like to admit this into evidence.

[00:33:31]>> I'm objecting for the record based on relevance. Again, this matter is about Miss Owen's harassment of Mr. Eert. I do not believe that this is relevant.

[00:33:40]>> I agree. It will not be admitted.

[00:33:44]>> 48. You know, how much time?

[00:33:48]>> One minute.

[00:33:56]I'd like to turn to exhibit 50, your honor.

[00:33:59]>> This will be the final one that I exhibit 50. Do you see do you recognize that exhibit?

[00:34:08]>> Yes, I do.

[00:34:09]>> Okay. And what is it of?

[00:34:13]>> Um, this is something that was posted to Reddit um by Mr. echard under a a false name and that was also in the order of protection hearing I had against him last last week. It was discussed.

[00:34:27]>> Right. And did you change this image in any way?

[00:34:31]>> No, I definitely did not.

[00:34:34]>> How did you how did you get a copy of this image?

[00:34:36]>> Um it was it was on Reddit. Somebody had uh created it. Um but I I know it was Mr. Eard because only he had he had this image.

[00:34:46]Objection.

[00:34:50]She's she's testifying, your honor, regarding information that she cannot testify about, speculating.

[00:35:00]>> You can have her lay a foundation that she has knowledge of.

[00:35:03]>> Okay.

[00:35:06]It's your understanding that Mr. Eard posted this this picture. Um, yes, because only he had he only he had the photo and the sonogram I'm I'm holding that's been edited.

[00:35:18]I mean that's I'd like to admit exhibit >> 50 >> 50 at this time.

[00:35:26]>> I'm objecting. This is inherently unreliable. She's failed to lay sufficient foundation. We this this was not posted by Mr. Eert and she provided zero proof that this was posted by Mr. Eard or further that this was sent to Mr. Eard um in this manner sustaining the objection and not a bit.

[00:35:50]>> Okay. No further nothing further at this time.

[00:35:53]>> Cross examination.

[00:35:55]>> Before I start with cross examination, um my request would be if the court's willing to entertain this that we be permitted to go until noon. Um, and I would be willing to wave closing argument because I do have important questions that I would like to go through as opposed to presenting the court with a closing argument if the court would allow that.

[00:36:14]>> Let's see how we're doing on time.

[00:36:16]>> Thank you, honor.

[00:36:19]>> Good morning, Miss Owens.

[00:36:21]>> Good morning.

[00:36:21]>> You were thoroughly you were thoroughly questioned by your attorney at the last hearing in this case on October 24th of 2023. Correct.

[00:36:30]>> Correct.

[00:36:31]And you understand that you were under oath at that time and you remain under oath today, right?

[00:36:37]>> Correct.

[00:36:39]>> And you're aware that any false testimony that you provided or provide today could be considered perjury, right?

[00:36:47]>> Yeah, absolutely.

[00:36:49]>> And so based on that, Miss Owens, before I proceed with my line of questioning, do you have any prior testimony that you'd like to correct at this time?

[00:36:59]>> I do not.

[00:37:03]I want to make sure that you're clearheaded and obviously uh it's your position that you are pregnant with alleged twins. Correct.

[00:37:11]>> Uh 100%. Yes. Correct.

[00:37:14]>> What medications are you currently on?

[00:37:16]>> Objection, your honor. Relevance. And that's an that's an inappropriate question for this.

[00:37:22]>> Overall, it can be impacting your testimony.

[00:37:25]Um, I'm on prescribed prenatalss and I'm on folic acid and I also I'm sorry. I also take lamotrogene for epilepsy.

[00:37:39]>> Is there anything else? Is that your entire list of medications?

[00:37:43]>> That's my entire list because I was taken off of anything else that I was on when I found out that I was pregnant.

[00:37:49]And have you been diagnosed with any other medical or mental health issues?

[00:37:54]>> Objection, honor. I don't think that that's going into her mental health, going into her physical health, mental health. I don't think that's appropriate uh for this type of hearing.

[00:38:06]>> I have a question.

[00:38:07]>> Uh depression.

[00:38:12]>> Okay. And any other physical health diagnoses?

[00:38:16]>> Epilepsy.

[00:38:19]And who who provided those diagnosis?

[00:38:21]>> All right. I think we're now over the the point of that testimony.

[00:38:25]>> Understood. I'll move on, please.

[00:38:30]>> And how far along are you as we sit here today with respect to the pregnancy?

[00:38:35]>> I am 24 weeks along.

[00:38:40]>> And when was your last menstrual period in order to calculate your due date?

[00:38:45]>> Objection, your honor. I I don't think that that's appropriate at this time. It It seems like these questions are meant to harass my client. She's indicated she's pregnant. She's indicated it's been about a month. You don't need to know things about her menstrual period.

[00:38:58]>> I'm going to sustain the objection.

[00:39:02]>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[00:39:08]>> Can you please uh provide us with the your alleged due date?

[00:39:13]>> Uh February 14th.

[00:39:18]And you testify that there's absolutely no possibility at all that your alleged twins are anyone other than Clayton.

[00:39:25]Correct?

[00:39:26]>> There's no chance they're anybody else's.

[00:39:29]>> But you understand that Clayton has been very clear from day one that he did not have sexual intercourse with you, right?

[00:39:37]>> Um Clayton was not. If you look at the June 4th message, he >> and these are yes or no questions. Do you understand that Clayton was very clear from day one that it's his position he did not have sexual intercourse with you?

[00:39:51]>> Then the answer is no.

[00:39:58]>> And as we sit here today, you have participated in three DNA tests to try to prove that Clayton was the father. Correct.

[00:40:07]>> Correct.

[00:40:09]And not a single DNA test has come back.

[00:40:12]>> Oh, I'm sorry. Clayton's the father.

[00:40:14]>> Sorry, it was it was two DNA tests, not three.

[00:40:18]>> Well, you indicated at the last hearing that you were providing a sample for the third DNA test to be completed. Correct.

[00:40:24]>> But the second one got got there was an issue with the transit according to the lab. So, I mean, that wasn't tested. So, I can't say that I have had three tests that have come back with different results because only two were tested.

[00:40:38]Miss Owens, you've provided a sample on three separate occasions for DNA tests. Correct.

[00:40:46]>> Correct. But the second was was >> these are yes or no questions. I'm not >> I'm not looking for you to elaborate.

[00:40:54]So, we'll move on. As we sit here today, not a single DNA test has come back indicating that Clayton's the father.

[00:41:03]Correct.

[00:41:04]>> The samples were diluted and I'm going back next month. What?

[00:41:07]>> It can be a yes or no question.

[00:41:12]It's a very simple question. As we sit here today, you have no DNA test that indicates that Clayton is the father, right?

[00:41:21]>> The results, the testing is ongoing is what I was told as was Clayton.

[00:41:28]>> So, that's on a couple occasions that the testing is ongoing.

[00:41:34]>> Correct. So, is it your testimony that you provide these samples and that there's no results that are coming from these samples you're providing?

[00:41:47]>> I'm I'm unclear on what you're trying to ask me because they said that I month to give another sample that the testing is not back. So, I'm I'm unclear. I guess I'm trying to say.

[00:42:01]Isn't it true that the test came back and indicated there was zero fetal DNA?

[00:42:09]>> That's absolutely not true.

[00:42:12]>> Okay.

[00:42:14]>> And again, Miss Owens, you have provided no testimony and no um objective evidence or documentation to date to support that you have a positive DNA test proving Clayton's the father of your alleged twins. Right.

[00:42:31]The testing is ongoing. I'm I'm unclear, I guess, is what you're trying to ask me.

[00:42:38]>> Who is your OB/GYN?

[00:42:40]>> Dr. Mcool again >> and Dr. Dr. Higgley.

[00:42:47]>> I wasn't able to to hear that and I'm not sure if that's >> I'll withdraw the objection.

[00:42:52]>> Can you please repeat that, Miss Owens?

[00:42:54]Who who is your OB/GYN? My main OB/GYN is the parintologist, Dr. Mcool.

[00:43:04]>> And what is the last time? Oh, well, you said your main OBGYn. Who else are you seeing? What other pregnancy related doctors are you seeing?

[00:43:10]>> Dr. Higgley, who I saw last Friday.

[00:43:14]And and an epilepsy doctor as well for it. He specializes in pregnancy.

[00:43:22]>> Okay. And in your in your exhibit, I believe it was 44.

[00:43:27]You indicated, and actually, let me go back here.

[00:43:34]I apologize. It was your exhibit 43. You indicated that all of exhibit 43 uh contains copies of your medical records that would support this alleged pregnancy. Correct.

[00:43:48]Um, I believe it was exhibit 46 that was the proof of pregnancy. We we didn't do exhibit 43.

[00:43:57]I apologize. Exhibit 46, my mistake. And in that exhibit 46, all that you have from Dr. Mool here is a screenshot of an upcoming appointment for Monday, July 24th of 2023. Right.

[00:44:14]>> Correct. Because that he's You you understand that anyone can go online at a mommy where Dr. Mcool works and make an appointment for a for an OBGYn appointment with Dr. Mcool.

[00:44:31]Correct.

[00:44:31]>> Um that that is that is not true. Dr. Mcool special is a parinatal referral to have to see him because I have epilepsy.

[00:44:38]He's a high-risisk specialist. You can't go and make an appointment with him. I had to send records to get an appointment with him.

[00:44:45]>> Okay. But I the only record that you have provided this court with regarding your alleged high-risk paranatologist is a screenshot of an appointment for Monday, July 24th of 2023. Right.

[00:45:02]>> No, I provided the last page was October the 11th with a diagnosis epilepsy during pregnancy from my neurologist after an appointment that day.

[00:45:12]Miss Owen, there is no copy of any medical record from October 11th.

[00:45:22]>> Yes, there is the last page.

[00:45:24]>> It's October 11th. If you look at the last page, Zean Glennice on October 11th, 10:5320 Mountain Standard Time.

[00:45:32]>> I apologize. What was it that the court indicated?

[00:45:34]>> A few more minutes. So, we need to probably step it up a little bit if you want to get to other things. Um, as we sit here today, Miss Owens, you have refused to sign any sort of HIPPA release so that Mr. Eard could obtain directly from your medical providers evidence to support any alleged pregnancy.

[00:45:57]>> No, I on Friday, I literally had the doctor send it to him directly. I had my provider send it to him directly. And that's an email I sent to him telling him that it was sent directly to him. I signed a HIPPA release.

[00:46:14]>> Miss Owens, this is not the first time that you've made allegations that you're pregnant with Queen within the last two years. Correct.

[00:46:25]>> That is incorrect.

[00:46:27]>> Okay. So, I would ask the court to take judicial notice, your honor, of the civil matter involving Mr. Ked Kleski, who is present in the courtroom today.

[00:46:37]Um and it's CV get that number for report.

[00:46:44]>> I have a protection >> 2021 >> Gillespie and against Mr. Eard and I wish I was aware that Mr. Gillespie >> 052893.

[00:46:54]>> I'm going to object to that.

[00:46:58]I mean, we we had an exhibit that we discussed last time regarding that case and what was presented with the complaint and a motion to dismiss and there wasn't any findings from any court on anything related to that. So, I'm not going to consider that at this point.

[00:47:12]Your I do have some questions that I think are very important for the court to hear regarding that case. I understand if the court doesn't want to take judicial notice, but I do have questions that are important that I would like to proceed with regarding the the uncanny similarities.

[00:47:30]I I don't think that that would be appropriate for this specific hearing.

[00:47:34]We know the scope of this particular hearing bringing up things in a separate case. There could be there's separate issues. Uh they're not these are not the same thing. This is an injunction against harassment. I don't even know what that that case is. That's not it's not an injunction against harassment. I know that it it's not appropriate.

[00:47:56]This goes to the heart of why Mr. Eard needs this injunction against harassment and Miss Miss Owens's pattern, her modus operandi, her pattern of behavior, her pattern of making the same claims against other men in the state of Arizona within the last two years. And I think it's highly relevant to this case because it supports why Mr. Eert needs this injunction against harassment because this individual has done this before and there are concerns that she will not stop.

[00:48:29]>> They sustain the objection. I'm not going to allow that testimony.

[00:48:36]And your honor, I would ask again the court to reconsider here because this matter, it's very important that the court hears how Miss Owens has made the exact same allegations in another matter within the last two years and that she has committed perjury in her last in the last hearing because she made incorrect state. She made false statements under oath regarding the nature of that case.

[00:49:02]She opens the door in her testimony when Mr. Lopez was cross-exam when he was direct examining her regarding the fact that there are no other cases that are similar regarding things that happened in that case. So she did open the door based on her direct examination.

[00:49:20]Robert, these are very serious allegations that the petitioner's attorney is now alleging against my client. She is insisting that my client has now committed perjury. My client has never been has no criminal history and is not being charged with perjury. So I don't I I don't know like that's just an allegation. Again, these cases are completely different.

[00:49:44]We're hearing that the attorney testified that these are the same. These are not the same matters. Uh this these questions and this cross-examination of my client regarding these issues again would be inappropriate and is outside the scope of this hearing. In fact, it even sounds like she's trying to bring out character evidence which would be inadmissible in a hearing like this.

[00:50:08]>> I'm going to sustain the objection again, but if there's other things you want to ask about her testimony, Kim, you have about two more minutes.

[00:50:23]Miss Owens, you understand and you testified under oath that Mr. Eert blocked you from communicating with him. Correct.

[00:50:38]>> He would block and unblock, >> but but not from communication from it was on a text number, but we were always in email communication. As recently as the day before we went to the I went to the press, he sent me an email. So, >> well, Mr. Eckert told you he didn't want you contacting him anymore and then would block your telephone number.

[00:51:01]Correct.

[00:51:03]>> But told me to email him, >> Miss Owens, these are yes or no questions. Isn't it true that Mr. Eard indicated he did not want you contacting him anymore and then would block your telephone number? Actually, that's incorrect. From the last in from the early uh resolution conference that we had, Mr. Eard told me specifically to contact him via text. I forgotten that.

[00:51:28]If you look at the whatever the transcript from that hearing, you would see that and I didn't. I haven't contacted him via text after he told me to.

[00:51:38]>> Okay, let's Can you take a look at exhibit 55 for me, please?

[00:51:43]>> Um, I don't have an exhibit 55.

[00:51:47]These are supplemental exhibits >> than the ones that that are their exhibits that they would have sent you.

[00:52:00]>> Um >> I >> it may not be marked by by number I guess the issue. Hers may not be marked by number. They are your honor number >> email. I did not see his exhibits.

[00:52:16]Excuse me. Let me uh >> and your honor, I'm asking for more time because her not being prepared knowing I presented these exhibits to her attorney yesterday is coming into my time and I have still several questions I'd like to ask. I >> I was not aware that that he was getting more exhibits added after he already had testified. So, I apologize. Uh I >> Okay. text messages between the parties dated 523 20 52523 that's all I have I don't have the actual >> that's the first one and then there is another one after that do you see you have the exhibit that's from May 25th >> um I don't see anything I literally just am seeing a list of plaintiffs trial exhibits 55 through 63.

[00:53:15]>> Uh, can you explain what the context is for me to understand?

[00:53:20]>> Are you able to scroll down?

[00:53:25]>> I'm concerned if she doesn't have these exhibits that we're going to need more time because this is very important that I get through this testimony. And I provided these to council in advance to avoid this exact issue. And had Miss Owens been present, this would have been an issue at all.

[00:53:45]>> Right. But I have a protective against Mr. Eard.

[00:53:49]>> All right. Just can you find the exhibits or not?

[00:53:52]>> Uh, let me just try to see if I could scroll down. Hang on. Maybe if I make my screen smaller.

[00:53:58]I Oh, yes, I do. Hang on. I think I see them. I see exhibit 50 55. Yes, I do.

[00:54:06]Go ahead, Miss Owen. Do you see exhibit 55 is a text message communication between you and Clayton dated May 25th of 2023. Correct.

[00:54:16]>> Correct. The day after he didn't file the uh >> I would move to admit these exhibits, your honor. This exhibit not testimony. She's asking if you recognize the exhibit. Any objection to 55?

[00:54:28]>> Um I don't remember sending >> 55. And here, Miss Owens, on May 25th of 2023, Clayton says to you, "I'm debating buying a police report. Please leave me alone." Correct.

[00:54:40]>> The the contact needs to be stated. He did not make >> Yes or no question.

[00:54:47]>> And he was found in >> Your attorney will have a time to ask you a question again, Miss Owen. So, just answer her question and your attorney will have an opportunity to question you again.

[00:54:56]>> Okay. But can you uh I'm sorry. Can you uh repeat the question? I'm I'm sorry.

[00:55:03]>> I'm concerned that this is that she's doing this intentionally to eat it.

[00:55:07]>> All right, let's just ask the questions.

[00:55:08]You're wasting more time saying all that stuff.

[00:55:11]>> Miss Owens, isn't it true that on this text message dated May 25th of 2023, Clayton responded to you and said, "I'm debating filing a police report. Please leave me alone." Correct.

[00:55:23]>> That's what the text message says. I don't have that, but sure. And right below that, you sent him another text message. Correct.

[00:55:33]>> That's what it shows. Correct.

[00:55:36]>> Okay. Can we move to exhibit 56? It should be the next page of the document.

[00:55:40]Please, >> how are we on time? Because I know you said three minutes.

[00:55:45]>> We're close on time. So, I want to leave everyone time to do a closing if they choose to.

[00:55:56]You see these emails between you and Clayton dated May uh June 28th of 2023.

[00:56:02]Correct.

[00:56:04]>> Correct. But the middle email is missing from him. But correct. Yes.

[00:56:08]>> You're move for the admission of exhibit 56. Please >> but it's missing the >> middle. I'm going to object because this is this isn't everything in in hole. This is you can see that there's an email missing between these two. I don't there wasn't any foundation that was laid.

[00:56:30]>> I I but this is this is this was one of many emails sent between the two of us.

[00:56:38]Clayton changed his mind many times.

[00:56:42]>> I'm guess just referring to these exhibits. Do you recognize these exhibits?

[00:56:47]>> Um these messages.

[00:56:49]>> Um I mean that's that's what they said.

[00:56:51]I haven't gotten to read through them, but I mean that's what it says.

[00:56:59]Do you believe these are a representation of the exhibits of the emails that were sent?

[00:57:06]>> Um, I know that my name when somebody emails when I email somebody else has a picture of me with a horse instead of the L. So, I don't know if that's relevant. Whereas like Clayton's picture is is shown with Clayton Eckard. So, I don't know if that's relevant. I'm uh if I read these quickly, I can see if um if they are mine.

[00:57:24]I'm going to trust that they are mine, but um uh I haven't got gotten a chance to read through them.

[00:57:35]Um your honor, she she did testify that she recognized these emails dated June 28th of 2023. So, I'm asking for their admission.

[00:57:47]Um, again, the middle email is missing where Clayton tried to trap me. But, um, >> I'm asking if the court strike that that there's no question before her right now regarding that.

[00:58:08]>> I I'll strike that statement. I will go ahead and admit exhibit 56.

[00:58:14]In exhibit 56, Miss Owens, on line one, you say, "I just need clarity as to what we are doing. I've offered to give you control over the outcome of the pregnancy if we date exclusively and care for each other." Correct.

[00:58:29]>> Correct. Was just one thought on one day and I took that away after. Yes.

[00:58:34]>> And this is the exact same statement that you made to Mr. Gillespie back in July of 2021, isn't it?

[00:58:44]I have no idea what statement I made to Mr. Gillespie, but both pregnancies have been medically proven and I have the documentation and sent it.

[00:58:51]>> But Miss Owen miss everyone talking over each other.

[00:58:57]>> I I sent the HIPPO records. I I released my HIPPO records.

[00:59:02]>> There's no question before you honor.

[00:59:03]I'm asking the court to strike this these statements.

[00:59:08]>> All right. So, let's try to answer the question. I I don't know what I said.

[00:59:14]>> Okay. So, if you don't remember, just say I don't know what I said. That if I said that. Okay. There we go. All right.

[00:59:20]So, we have one room for like one more question and we're going to be doing closing argument.

[00:59:25]>> And your honor, again, I would just ask that in lie of closing argument that I be permitted to ask.

[00:59:30]>> I've already done that. Okay.

[00:59:32]>> We're already at 11:56 at the moment.

[00:59:34]So, your honor, um, and here, Miss Owens, isn't it true that you alleged you were pregnant with twins with Mr. Gillespie in June of 2021?

[00:59:50]>> No, that was an email that he doctorred in 2021 that I have already testified about that in the other case. So, no, I never said I was pregnant with twins.

[01:00:02]Can you please take a look at our exhibit?

[01:00:06]>> This was an exhibit that whatever it is, I'm guessing I know what it is. It was one message that was doctorred by Mr. Gillespie that appeared a year into the court case I had with him.

[01:00:16]>> We've already discussed the fact that I'm not really con considering all of that. So, let's let's Mr. Your honor, my my concern here and and again I I I obvious I I mean this with all due respect, but Ms. Owens has a pattern of behavior here. She has previously made identical allegations in another case.

[01:00:37]The exhibits that I have today as supplemental exhibits all support that the statements she's made to Mr. Eert are almost identical to statements made to Mr. Gillespie in 2021. This is highly concerning behavior. She has nowed herself on several occasions during testimony and I am not being given the opportunity to show the court the documents to support that she's lying under oath.

[01:01:04]>> I I I have proven my pregnancy that had my records sent to Mr. Eard.

[01:01:08]>> Okay, Mr. Owens, we're not Mr. Owen, we're not testifying right now.

[01:01:11]>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[01:01:14]Even if it was true that Miss Owens did that in the past, which we are denying, but even if it was true, that has no relation to this specific case. Just because she may have done it before doesn't mean she's doing it now. And we have presented evidence showing that she is pregnant. We have presented evidence showing >> false. We're going to do closing arguments now. So, whoever wants to do a closing argument, Mr. Arena, go ahead.

[01:01:40]Your honor, this is a clear case of harassment.

[01:01:46]The court has seen through all of the exhibits submitted by Mr. Eert and the additional exhibits that were present be presented today that the parties had an encounter in May of 2020.

[01:01:59]Mr. Eert did not have sexual intercourse with Miss Owens.

[01:02:04]Shortly thereafter, Miss Owens began claiming she was pregnant with Mr. Eckert's child with an alleged child.

[01:02:11]Mr. Eckerts repeatedly from May to today's date has pleaded with Miss Owens to stop contacting him. He has blocked her number on several occasions and she gets a new number andor uses an app to continue contacting him. It has not stopped. Mr. Eert has lost job opportunities, speaking engagements. He has suffered extreme emotional distress over these claims that are baseless and over her repeated outreach attempts after pleading with her to stop.

[01:02:55]This is the definition of harassment.

[01:02:57]The court's well aware harassment is defined per the statute as a series of acts over any period of time that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms annoys or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose.

[01:03:20]Miss Owens has fabricated a pregnancy now twice on two separate occasions. Mr. Ear is the second victim of this. She has provided no medical records to support that she is in fact pregnant. As the court saw, her exhibit 46, your honor, is not medical records to support a pregnancy. It is merely, and I'd like to draw the court's attention to this, it is a picture of a test completed at Banner on June 1st of 2023 regarding hCG. It does not say it is a positive pregnancy test.

[01:04:04]The next page, >> your honor.

[01:04:07]>> Oh, I'm sorry.

[01:04:08]>> This is not your turn.

[01:04:10]>> I'm sorry. It just It does. Okay. It's not your turn.

[01:04:15]>> It is very questionable as as a woman who's been pregnant before that Miss Owens goes to Banner to get a alleged pregnancy test on June 1st and then she never as far as she never goes back to Banner Health for any additional testing. The next page of this exhibit is simply a screenshot of an upcoming appointment with a Dr. Mcool on Monday, July 24th, 2023. There are no records to support that she is an active patient with Dr. Mcool that he is her peranatlogologist. There's nothing. We just have a screenshot of an appointment that was made which anyone can do online.

[01:04:56]The next record, your honor, this is now a hcg test from any lab test now in Scottsdale. This is not a positive pregnancy test. This is a positive hcg test. Why is she going to a new provider for a alleged pregnancy test on October 16th?

[01:05:20]These next two pages of records, your honor, are it's hard to tell what they are. They look like they are screens grabs of of an appointment, but it's unclear.

[01:05:35]It it's just unclear at the root of this case and the reason that Mr. Ecker is fearful he is scared is the fact that there has been a fabricated pregnancy.

[01:05:48]She has participated in several paternity tests, none of which have come back showing any proof or any signs of fetal DNA. Your honor, if it wasn't for the fact that she has done this before in another case, this is unbelievable. It is It is very alarming. She lied under oath and she's lied to She lied under oath at the last hearing. She's not being truthful today.

[01:06:18]And my client is legitimately fearful of what else she's capable of. He's asking that this court recognize that he has done everything to handle this appropriately. He has begged and pleaded with her to stop contacting him. There is no reason for these two to have communication. Despite what Miss Owens will say regarding this alleged pregnancy, there is no proven pregnancy at this point. So, we are asking that this court find that she has harassed Mr. Eert from May of 2023 up until today's date. And we're asking that the court find that the injunction against harassment needs to be ordered and maintained.

[01:06:58]Thank you, Mr. Chavez.

[01:07:00]>> Mr. Honor, now I would agree with Clayton that Laura's communications with him were alarming, annoying, harassing if in fact Laura wasn't pregnant. And if in fact he wasn't responding to her through the over 4 month period that she's been pregnant, she is pregnant and he has been responding.

[01:07:26]Clayton has not met his burden in this matter. He's claimed that the amount of texts and emails has caused him to be alarmed, annoyed, harassed. Well, for starters, the reason there are so many emails and text messages is because the chosen form of communication between Laura and Clayton was through emails and text messages. And because that was how Clayton wanted them to communicate, not in person, uh, not over the phone, but through emails and text messages.

[01:07:59]And second, we are talking about a span again of over over four months or more.

[01:08:06]There are going to be a lot of text messages messages during that time.

[01:08:10]There are going to be a lot of emails during that time. Third, he claimed in his petition that he has not responded to Laura and that he had blocked her.

[01:08:21]Now, that is clearly a lie. And >> that's misstates the evidence. There is clear evidence to support that the messages are showing from a blocked sender. That is not accurate. Your honor, some of those messages may have been blocked, but there are other communications in the exhibit in Clinton's own exhibits that state that show that he did respond to my client, whether it be in emails or text messages, and we've provided those uh some of those exhibits um in the ones that were admitted to this court. Now, Lauren testified that there was communication even aside from the exhibits that we've presented. It's impossible to put all the communication within over four months into a a short hearing essentially.

[01:09:13]Now, I want to talk about the content of that communication. All of the communication from my client to Clayton was meant for legitimate purposes and not to annoy him, not to harass him, not to alarm him.

[01:09:29]Almost all communication between Laura and Clayton was for the purposes of the pregnancy and paternity.

[01:09:37]The only other sort of communication from my client toward Clayton was in relation to the post that he put online when my client would receive harassing messages from Clayton's fans and his followers. So the communication around that time, call it August, September, was toward Clayton, asking him to take those different things down so that my client wouldn't be harassed.

[01:10:02]Throughout this entire time, since May, Clayton has never been clear with what he's wanted to do. He's been wishy-washy the entire time. First, he didn't believe that my client was pregnant. So, she sent him proof, and she sent him proof again. He wanted numerous forms of proof. You saw in our exhibit, the video of Miss Owens pregnant. That was a video that Clayton asked my client to send to him. How can you ask someone to send you proof of their pregnancy and then now call it harassment? Now say that you're alarmed. Now say that you're annoyed.

[01:10:36]Now say that you're harassed. That doesn't make any sense.

[01:10:41]He was also wishy-washy about what should be done with the unborn children.

[01:10:45]And we're talking about at the beginning around May, June, should these children, should she have the children? Should they be aborted? Are we going to give them up for adoption? Am I going to have sole custody? Is she going to have soul custody? He was never consistent with what he wanted. I'm sure that he was I'm sure maybe he thought one thing one day and maybe he thought something else another day and then he thought back says the we didn't know what he wanted and that was communication that was going both ways back and forth between Clayton and Lauren again. He hasn't been consistent and that is what the root of this problem is. That is why there's so many communications back and forth. Had this been done in person, had they chosen to meet up physically or talk over the phone, things wouldn't get lost in in translation, through email, through text.

[01:11:36]But that's how they chose that's how Clayton chose how he wanted communication with Laura.

[01:11:43]And that's what made everything so difficult.

[01:11:46]During this time period, Laura actually had to hire another attorney to help facilitate paternity testing.

[01:11:54]That didn't work. So then Laura had to file a a matter out of the family court to create the parent.

[01:12:00]>> These are not facts in evidence at this time. These are exhibits that Mr. Lopez did not get to present.

[01:12:07]I think she testified that she filed a fraternity lawsuit >> and they did not have neither of them my client nor claim have had an attorney in that family matter. So they are forced to communicate with each other because they needed me and confer they needed to submit a resolution plan. So there's going to be text and communications back and forth from the two of them.

[01:12:30]Everything again everything that you've heard during uh whether it was our case and chief or the petitioner's case and chief this is a snapshot of what has happened over the course of over four months. We were not able to present everything. All communication between my client and Clayton were for legitimate purposes.

[01:12:50]Again, not to harass him. Look at the exhibits. Look at the ones that Clayton submitted. There are clear exhibits that show that he was sending messages to her. we had submitted um exhibits showing that uh Clayton had been communicating with her. So the fact that in the petition itself states that he had not responded to her, that that's completely untrue.

[01:13:14]He had indicated in his petition that my client had harassed him. Well, that's not what happened. Who was the one that was posting videos online and getting harassed? Clayton was posting the videos. My client was getting harassed.

[01:13:27]Not one communication.

[01:13:31]There wasn't one communication that indicated after they had been in communication since May. Since then, there was no communications that were sent to my client telling my client, "Stop texting me, stop emailing me, stop calling me."

[01:13:48]Not one. They presented one exhibit that shows one message that indicated that, "Oh, I I may call the police." Something like that. It seems like he might be worried. But since then, he had been communicating with my client. So again, you can't say that you are being alarmed and knowing harassed and then going ahead and then emailing my client, texting my client.

[01:14:14]And again, for all of those reasons, I think that the communication between my my client and Mr. Eard were for legitimate purposes for the uh to determine pregnancy itself. Moving into determining paternity itself to trying to schedule paternity testing with the attorney to the family court matter and and and to today and so for all those reasons we're requesting that this be dismissed. Thank you.

[01:14:49]in rebuttal.

[01:14:51]None of the communication from Miss Owens to Clayton has been for legitimate purpose. As the court has heard today, it is clear there is been no DNA test or test of any kind to support that she is allegedly pregnant with Mr. Eert's twins. There is no reason for these parties to communicate.

[01:15:14]What Mr. Lopez is proposing is that if you block someone, but they find another way to contact you and then you tell them you still don't want to talk to them in a polite email or a polite message, then that's not harassment.

[01:15:31]That is the epitome of harassment, your honor. The court has received exhibits in the first hearing from Mr. Eert supporting that she would find other avenues to communicate with him after he had blocked her. Again, it is Mr. Eert's position that there is no that this pregnancy has been fabricated. And I want to be clear on this, your honor.

[01:15:54]It's possible that Miss Owens is pregnant, but it's my client's position that he did not have sexual intercourse with her and he she is not pregnant with his alleged twins. And that is the root of the issue here. There has been no support for this alleged pregnancy other than her attempts to show the court andor Mr. Eert a picture of her alleged pregnancy which again we suspect may still be fabricated. So there has been no legitimate purpose to her communication other than to harass Mr. Eert to try to force a relationship on him. She told Mr. Eert on multiple occasions that she was going to force him to communicate with her whether he wanted to or not.

[01:16:47]And he has been clear. He does not want any additional communication from her.

[01:16:54]All right. Thank you.

[01:16:56]So, um, as I stated when we first started this hearing, um, I'm not making a determination as to whether or not she's pregnant or not.

[01:17:10]That is a family court matter. That case is pending before the family court. The testing or whatever is going to happen is a result of that. So, I'm not making a decision and a determination today whether or not there is a uh valid or invalid pregnancy.

[01:17:28]I understand Mr. Eert's position is there isn't. I understand her position is there is that that's where we are at the moment. With regards to the evidence and the communication, the court at this time does find there were a series of events that were aimed at the uh plaintiff that would cause a reasonable person to be alarmed, annoyed, or harassed, that she he was in fact alarmed, annoyed, or harassed. I do find they did not serve a legitimate purpose.

[01:17:54]Messages that have been sent, one, he blocked her on numerous occasions. She even said in the blocking communication, "Can you unblock me so I can unblock you again? and I got a new number and then there's another new number. I think that's clear that he does not wish to have communication. Nature of the communication while maybe surrounds the pregnancy, the communications that I have a lot of concerns with are the ones where she is trying to make offers to him to continue a relationship that she is trying to facilitate. If you do this and I'll give you this. uh those kinds of messages are of the nature that are harassing and can be viewed as alarming, annoying or harassing. Um there are number of messages that were admitted that are attempts at I I view kind of almost as trying to you know get him to do and agree to things that are not necessarily you know it's not like we said hey can you take attorney test and he said no hey you know can you reconsider I want to do a test and then I went and filed a lawsuit because you wouldn't do it. I mean, that's one thing. 500 emails back and forth or messages, I'll say text messages and emails over that period of time to try to clarify and do that I is is beyond uh what was necessary to be able to communicate those things. There were a number of threats to go to the media which were other additional attempts to try to use the media as manipulation or the threat to go to the media as manipulation. I find those to be uh alarming, annoying, harassing. So I am going to grant the injunction at this time. Injunction would uh is going to prevent any communication outside of legal the legal process uh and specifically legal process and court hearings. Um so I am going to grant the injunction and so uh I will sign the granted injunction today. Um, and then I know Miss Owens isn't present, but we can give uh a copy of the signed injunction obviously to Mr. Lopez uh today. Uh, but whether or not ultimately she needs to be served with it uh so that the service of the injunction is appropriate because it will go into effect once the injunction is served upon her, it would remain in effect uh for a period of one year. This was the hearing that she had as a result of that. So there's not an additional time to request an additional hearing.

[01:20:27]And if you guys want to wait for a few minutes, I'll sign a an order. If there were exhibits that you did not offer that you wish to have returned to you, you can let the clerk know and she can release those back.

[01:20:40]>> Thank you.

[01:20:41]>> Thank you.

[01:20:41]>> Thank you.

[01:20:42]>> Thank you.

[01:20:56]I need a hand.

[01:22:17]graduated a couple years ago.

[01:22:29]>> Okay.

[01:22:37]Oh, so you graduated here before. Yeah.

[01:22:45]And and I was like, I think I went to school. And then I was like,