Waiting for the Truth | EP 16

0:00This is an I Heart Podcast. Guaranteed Human When it comes to accessing your home's value, what you don't know might be the only thing standing in your way. I don't understand. Exactly. Huh? An HEI from Splatero will give you a lump sum of cash upfront in exchange for a share of your home's future value. An HEI? What's the difference between that and a HELOC? Everything that matters. A HELOC is alone with variable interest rates that often have DTI requirements and monthly payments. With a Splatero HEI, there is no DTI requirement and most importantly, no monthly payments. Oh, I like that one. There's no payments one. Of course, you're smart. And check this out. A HELOC has strict income and credit requirements. A Splatero HEI requires only a 500 minimum credit score and no income requirement. So much better. It seems like the only reason to confuse them is that they both start with H. Just remember Splatero. HEI means Splatero. Visit spltitiro.com today and access your home's equity.

1:01No monthly payments, just cash in hand. Splatero. If you're seeking to try to understand the forensic science behind these cases that we hear about in the news, body bags is where you need to turn. There's no fluff. We do a deep dive into the forensics. Listen to body bags with Joseph Scott Morgan on America's number one podcast network. Eye heart. Open your free eye heart app and search body bags with Joseph Scott Morgan and start listening. What up this J Valentine co-host of the R&B Money Podcast alongside my brother, R&B Legend, Tank. Together, we've built a space for artists, executives and fans of R&B music to reminisce and tell the real stories behind the music. I have no money. I was hood famous. They think you're going to get everybody out. We lived in a project. We loved it. They hear the music and we had nothing. From Smokey Robinson to Mary J. Blige, V2K to Jill Scott. If you're a super dedicated R&B fan, this is where you belong. Listen to R&B Money from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the Eye Heart Radio app Apple

2:06Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. It's the US Open, which means the tennis world is about to lose its mind and I'm here for every second of it. Join me, Renee Stubbs on the Renee Stubbs tennis podcast as I break it all down. The matches that matter, the drama that doesn't and the stories everyone's talking about. No cliches, no sugarcoding, just host analysts from someone who's actually been there. Coco, looking real good, her surf looks so much smoother than it has in the past. I was really happy to see Yiga back to what she looked like a couple of years ago and she was winning dominantly. Listen to the Renee Stubbs tennis podcast on the Eye Heart Radio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. In the last episode, you heard that Laura's criminal plea deal deadline was extended to August 28th, 2026. That wasn't the first or second time the deadline had been extended. But according to Clayton Eckerd, the prosecutor told him there would be no further kicking of the can.

3:06I asked the prosecutor, I said this deadline on the 28th of August, is that the absolute last point at which she can take the plea. He said yes. I said there is no situation in which that will get extended. He goes, no, I'll make sure of it. It's okay. A few weeks ago, while I was in Arizona visiting my family, I took the opportunity to check in on Clayton. I stopped by his house to catch up and see how he was feeling leading up to the settlement conference. How do you feel knowing that this could actually come to an end soon? If she accepts this plea deal on the 28th, it would be over. I haven't even weighed the possibility of it ending in my mind because I've lost faith in there being like a finite ending point. And so I'm not even considering this being the end point because I just feel like Laura's

4:08got something up her sleeve. After the last settlement conference, you told me that you noticed something different about Laura. It's been about two months since the last one. Is there anything else you've noticed that might be different about her since then? I feel like it's just been quiet and silence is when Laura plots. So the more silence she is, we know that she's come up with something. She probably already has something that she's just waiting to employ after she drags it for the last second. And it's like, Sherry has a game plan. And it's going to probably work because it has it not worked yet in the court system. She's doing exactly what I thought she'd do, which is not doing anything until like the very last moment, will she take the plea or not? We're going to find out the day of... I'm Stephanie Young and this is Love Trap. There's no way out you'd better believe.

5:12I'll be raising holy hell my love if you ever, ever, ever, ever, ever try to leave. I know I've said this before, but August 28th, 2026, is the day we should finally find out if Laura Owens is accepting a plea deal in her criminal case or heading to trial. Ahead of that, I want to get you caught up on a few things that have happened since the last time you heard from us. On July 9th, Laura filed a motion for Declaration of Indigency and eligibility for court appointed experts and investigators. In legal terms, asking to be declared indigent is a formal statement that a defendant cannot afford private legal counsel or standard court fees. If that sounds familiar, it's because she made the same request back in September 2025,

6:14which was granted. However, after a second set of indictments came down in November 2025, she had to make the request again. Here's part of her motion, read by a voice actor. Defendant is currently unemployed and living with her parents at their home, where they assist her with all of her living expenses. Prior to 2025, when charges were originally brought in the previous case, Ms. Owens had a good job and a solid income. However, she has since lost all her previous sources of income and completely relies on her family for financial support. All of her savings, assets, etc. have been expended on her multiple legal battles, including this case. While defendant's parents provide the bulk of her support, including providing Ms. Owens with a monthly allowance to cover expenses, they themselves are currently in federal bankruptcy proceedings. We'll get to her parents bankruptcy proceedings in a little bit.

7:16But the part in this filing that stood out to me was that prior to 2025, Laura had a good job and a solid income. If you remember back in February, Laura had a bankruptcy hearing of her own. This is what she stated. So on schedule I indicate that you have zero income to no income from wages or operating a business, correct? Correct. And so for what time period were you saving that you had no income? I mean, I haven't ever in my life had like a $10.99 or $2 job, but I've, you know, really been supported by my family. So now you're in your life have you received a $10.99 or a $1.99 from any business, including your own businesses? Correct. No. Despite these glaring inconsistencies, Laura's request to be declared indigent was granted once again. That means Arizona taxpayer dollars are now partially funding her defense.

8:20I reached out to Clayton's attorney Greg Woodnick to get his take on it. The threshold for qualifying for appointed counsel is pretty low. And the reason why is that people need to be represented by counsel. The system operates better that way and it's kind of a constitutional thing. In Laura's case though, she isn't asking for court appointed counsel. She's still represented by a private attorney, Christian Looters. While it's unclear who's footing that bill, it begs the obvious question. If she can afford private counsel, how does she qualify for indigency? I can appreciate why the optics are a little curious because she's now had two private attorneys helping her. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I'm not sure I want to know what's going on behind the scenes, but I think people sometimes get confused because there's the concept of having an appointed attorney, which Laura has, qualified for previously. But there's also the concept of having the resources of an appointed attorney.

9:21According to Laura's motion, the resources she's requesting include an expert in digital forensics and may include additional experts such as an investigator and or mitigation expert. I read the motion is requesting resources, which means she has the advantage of private counsel, but the resources to access funds in our public defense system to hire experts and do the other things necessary to make sure she gets a fair defense. Like I said, we still don't know who's funding Laura's private counsel. But if she eventually becomes unable to afford him, the court would likely have to step in and assign a public defender. For anyone hoping for a swift resolution, that scenario brings a real risk of further delays. If there was some reason why he had to withdraw and was not able to represent her at the trial level, is there a possibility that that would cause some trial delay? Absolutely. And the reason why sort of makes sense.

10:22And that is we wouldn't want some lawyer coming in saying, hey, Judge, I'm not ready because then it sets any defendant up for an appellate issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. And we don't want that whether it's Laura or any other defendant, they all deserve good representation. They all deserve prepared representation. Hopefully that does not become an issue and hopefully her current counsel is in a position where he can see this through until a resolution be that by jury verdict or by plea and sentencing. There was another detail in Laura's motion that really caught my attention. It's being read by a voice actor. It should be noted that victim Clayton Eckert was awarded approximately $200,000 in attorney's fees and costs against Miss Owens in the family paternity matter. That debt is still outstanding against Miss Owens. Any income defendant receives and any assets she acquires are subject to garnishment toward

11:24the payment of that debt. At the time I'm recording this, Clayton hasn't seen a single dollar of the judgment he was awarded in their family court case. While Woodnick's previous attempt to collect was stalled by Laura's bankruptcy filing, that bankruptcy has since been dismissed. I asked Woodnick whether there are any current plans to pursue collection. Look, I was pretty frustrated when she filed bankruptcy on the eve of the judgment debtors exam. I had plenty of good questions to ask her and we believe there was a way to collect at least some of the significant judgments against her. My frustration went away pretty quickly when I saw the cluster fuck that the bankruptcy proceeding turned into when I saw that Laura's statements were so heavily scrutinized by the U.S. attorney's office. On July 22nd, Laura was due back in court for another status hearing in her criminal case.

12:39After entering their appearances, the parties confirmed the August 28th settlement conference and began setting a new trial date. So on July 28th, you need to be in my court room on August 28th at 230 for a settlement conference. Then you have a FTMC October 21st, date 45 before me, trial assignments October 28th, at 9 o'clock before the trial assignment judge. If you fail to appear, it won't let you feel rest if you don't show up for child, it could occur in your absence. Stay in touch with your lawyer. Thank you. We're in recess in this matter. To break this down, if Laura declines the plea offer, the case will proceed to trial. The trial assignment date is currently set for October 28th, 2026. At the trial assignment hearing, the court will officially assign a trial judge and finalize the schedule. After that, jury selection would begin. The trial is expected to start shortly thereafter. I asked what Nick about Laura's defense strategy, if she does go to trial. It's hard for me to put myself in her defense attorney shoes because I've seen so much

13:41not all, but so much of the evidence against her. In my opinion, it's pretty overwhelming. That's why I think there's an effort to come up with a resolution short of trial. I cautiously optimistic that that could happen. But if the matter does go to trial, the burden of proof is on the state. The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the 14 listed felonies. Do I think the state can do that? Yeah. I do think the state can do that. Is it possible that the state can't meet the burden on a few of the felonies come trial? That's certainly, I think if the matter did go to trial, there's more than enough evidence to find her guilty of most, if not all, of the 14 felonies charges. It's important to keep in mind that we might not have a definitive answer at the settlement conference on August 28th. Laura can still try to push the trial dates even further. You could also not accept the plea deal. Change your mind and ask for another one. Right up until the moment the jury announces its verdict in open court.

14:44But if she does accept the plea deal, that will change everything. She won't go to trial. Here's more of my conversation with Clayton from when I was in Arizona. Are you planning to go to the settlement conference on the 28th? Yeah, I am planning on going. I find it interesting because as you ask me that question, I haven't put much thought into it. I was like, yeah, of course I'm going to go. But again, I also feel like, what's the point? I feel that in the back of my head. What's the point? You spoke up last time at the settlement conference. Do you plan on speaking up again if you go on the 28th and what do you think you'll say? I mean, I assume again this hearing is going to be a matter of, is she going to submit for the plea or not? So as far as my response and what I want to say, my response will be based upon what she says in that moment. It's going to be an emotional response just by way of nature. She's going to accept the plea in which case if she accepts the plea, I don't think

15:46there's really anything for me to say at that point because then they, you know, they go to sentencing and then I will have something to say at sentencing. If she denies it and we go to court, then I still don't think I have anything to say in that moment either because it's like, okay, we're going to trial. The only thing that I would be animated on and what have plenty to say is if she asks for an extension of time or I show up and Laura doesn't because she has some emergency surgery and she's asking for an extension of time. In that case, I will absolutely stand up and be like, judge no more. Stop. Stop falling for her stuff. I know we got to take stuff like this seriously, but do not. She already has repeated moments of her claiming some medical emergency. Do not take this seriously. It's like the boy who cried wolf and we have to understand she's crying wolf right now, do not extend it. Make her make a decision right now or make her go to trial. Have you thought about what it's going to be like to see her? Have you thought about if you're going to look at her again?

16:46It's interesting because of how she reacted last time and I know she listens to everything that I put out. She obviously heard the whole like, we locked eyes and then I was confused and what message she was trying to spread. I kind of feel like I will look at her again because she knows that that did something internally within me. Nobody comes on this planet as a bad person. So like, yeah, I make eye contact because I'm like, I still think there's a child like version of Laura in her that's jovial and happy and like, it's there. It's probably suppressed so deeply, but it's like there's still a good version of her in there. As much as Clayton wants this to be over, what he really wants is honesty for Laura. Like Laura, if you just give us a sliver of truth, like we are dying for a sliver of your truth. We're tired of your lies. We're sick of your lies. Okay, you've given us plenty of those, but we are dying for Laura's truth because in that truth, there will be so much. Ah, that makes sense.

17:46Connecting of dots and it's closure. That's what it is. Truth holds so much closure for all of us involved. And now, He Lock vs. AGI. A splotero AGI gives you cash for a share of your home's future value. No monthly payments. A He Lock is a traditional loan with monthly payments and strict requirements. Splotero for the win. Visit splint.io.com today and access your home's equity. Do you hear that? That sound right? It's just that summer is officially here. It means that grown adults just sprint into the street for a frozen dessert shaped like a cartoon. But this summer, mid-mobile has a better tree. Every plan, including unlimited, is $15 a month. And unlike ice cream, it won't drip down your wrist or look nothing like the picture. Does anyone have any cash? Give it a try at minmobile.com slash switch. A front payment of $45 for three months. $90 for six months or $180 for 12-plank plan required. $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow and network is busy. See terms.

18:46If pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months and no bachelor's degree is required to apply. If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles and prepare for real-world pharmacy practice. West Coast University. As real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. It's fall in Jeep country and during the drive into fall sales event get a great deal on four by fours that refuse to be contained like Jeep Wrangler. Confidence built into every drive with the most awarded SUV ever, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and freedom that can't be denied with the open air freedom in Jeep Gladiator. After 85 years, it's no surprise that Jeep became America's SUV brand. Get a great deal during the Jeep Drive into fall sales event. Jeep is one more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV brand, cheap in the Jeep Grille-Rochester Trademarks of FCA US LLC.

19:52In addition to the criminal case in Arizona, there's another matter we've been following closely. Laura's appeal of the domestic violence restraining order dismissal and her case with Mike Marachini. As a reminder, this is happening in California and is completely separate from Laura's Arizona criminal case. Back in November 2025, Laura's DVRO renewal against Mike was dismissed because she didn't show up for trial, but she filed to appeal. Now, Laura's going back and forth in the appellate process. She's gotten multiple extensions on that appeal. Most recently, she's filed a motion to change the official record, which is causing more delays. I reached out to Mike's attorney, Rachel Worez, for an update. The court has now told her, this is it. You are not getting any more extensions, but the fact that she was able to get a couple of extensions on an appeal is very common. The court appears to be pretty much done granting extensions, but that's effectively

20:53what's happened. She's gotten another extension. A pellet briefing is very complex and very precise, so those briefs take a long time to write and to do correctly, so it is not a fast process. On August 20th, the court denied Laura's motion to change the official record. Her appeal is now due on September 4th, 2026. If, and this is a big if, Laura files everything correctly and on time, there will still be more back and forth before we have a decision. I wouldn't expect to have a resolution to the appeal for probably at least a year. The court may schedule it for oral arguments or may just decide on the papers or some other things may come up because after all this is Laura Owens. At this point, the only path to a quick resolution is if Laura doesn't file her appeal. However, in a previous court filing, Laura stated that regardless of how her appeal turns

21:54out, she plans to seek a new domestic violence restraining order against Mike. It's shocking, I think, that she would even admit that she's intending to do that. Because it really, it's nefarious. It really shows that this is not about a legitimate fear because right now there is no restraining order. If she were legitimately fearful of Mike, there's no obligation to wait. If this was someone who felt that there was someone coming after them who was posing a danger to them, I wouldn't expect them to wait until an appeal was finished. I'd expect them to be banging down every courthouse, every police department, every sheriff's office in the state saying, please give me protection. That's not happening. And I think that that evidence is a lack of actual fear or concern. This is all strategic. And for that reason, it would look bad to file another restraining order right now.

22:54So she's just not going to. Beyond the court filings, Rachel emphasized the sheer toll this prolonged legal battle is taking on Mike, both financially and personally. Mike is now having a higher appellate council. It's specialized attorneys to fight an appeal where the person didn't even show up to court. It is the type of situation that really shows you that even if someone doesn't have a leg to stand on in court, you can still be taken through the ringer. And that's happening to Mike. And so the implications of these things that she does, even when she doesn't follow through with them, are tremendously impactful on the victims. For now, Mike is in a holding pattern while he waits to see if Laura files her appeal. He told me he's prepared to continue the fight.

23:55For the rest of this episode, we're going to turn our attention to one of the most shocking and revealing updates from the last two months. Laura's parents bankruptcy case. When we last left off, honorable judge Madeline Wandsley had ordered Ron Owens and Jan Black to submit their completed paperwork, including a full accounting of funds raised through GoFundMe. On July 16th, they appeared in bankruptcy court again for a meeting of creditors. This hearing was recorded and posted on YouTube. And we learned a lot. My name is Jennifer G. Imo. I'm an attorney with the United States Trustees Office. We are here telephonically in the matter of Elizabeth Ann Naylor and Ronald Stephen Owens. If you're wondering who Elizabeth Ann Naylor is, that's Laura's mom, who also goes by Jan Black. According to the Bay Area Radio Museum and Hall of Fame website, Jan Black is her on-air

24:56name that she adopted while she was still in high school. Her reasoning, her given name Elizabeth Naylor, sounded too much like that of actress Elizabeth Taylor. That's why she goes by the chosen name Jan Black. It is July 16th, 2026 and the time is 10 a.m. May I please have an appearance by Miss Naylor and Mr Owens separately? Yes, this is Elizabeth Ann Naylor and I am a pro-say in this case and Ronald Stephen Owens. Pro-say means they're representing themselves without an attorney. Do you each solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Okay, thank you. Mr and Mrs Owens, your testimony today I'm going to be asking you questions and it's going to be under oath and subject penalty of perjury.

25:56Do you understand that? I do. Yes. Okay. Before this hearing, Ron and Jan submitted many financial documents and Jennifer Jiyama came prepared. It seems like she's reviewed everything they filed. The hearing begins with the matter of their home foreclosure and overdue mortgage payments. So let me just ask you, since you filed this case on May 22nd, have you made any mortgage payments? No. No. Okay, but I did notice you produced to me copies of about 18 months worth of bank statements for eight bank accounts with Bank of America, correct? Correct. Okay, and I did notice that 11 days after this bankruptcy was filed, you paid about $2,900 for life insurance. Is that correct? Correct. Help me understand how paying life insurance is a necessity while you're in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. Well, because you know, I view it as something that is a necessity.

27:00Yeah. Okay, you're saying that, but you're not getting it money currently from that life insurance policy, right? That's money that would only come to you in the event that either you or Mr. Owens passed away. Correct. Do you think that it was more important to pay life insurance instead of your mortgage on your home you're living in? They continue this back and forth about if the life insurance payment was responsible or necessary. Jan says that in order to save the house, they'd have to pay for the remainder of the mortgage balance in full. That number would be over six digits, or they can make a monthly payment that would be over $13,000. According to Jan's logic, that's why she continued paying for their exorbitantly expensive life insurance over their mortgage. So it didn't seem like a $2,900 payment would have done anything at all to save the house at that point. Do you know whether the foreclosure is going to proceed?

28:02We were notified that they have pushed out the foreclosure auction to September the 29th. And our hope is that we will be able to reach some sort of a resolution before then. I want to talk to you about the GoFundMe account that you set up. You've already heard about the GoFundMe page for Ron Owens. At the time I'm recording this, it's still up and running. The way GoFundMe works, there's usually a named organizer who sets up the page on behalf of the beneficiary. If you go to Ron's GoFundMe page, you see that the organizer just uses the initials LL. Jennifer Giamo had some questions about the organizer. Let me ask you, are you the person that set up that GoFundMe page for Mr Owens? The GoFundMe was the idea of friends of ours who knew that we were really in a difficult

29:03situation at that point and suggested that based on the goodwill and the tremendous support and following that my husband has had over the years, that it would be a good thing to reach out to people who might want to help. Okay. And so who's the person that authored the request for the donations on GoFundMe? Who wrote that? That was initially authored by someone who was a friend who at the last minute decided once they were really aware of what was going on with this mere campaign against us, did not want their name attached to it. I have administered the funds, the funds we were going into by husband's account and I administered them going to pay the bills after that. I need to know the name of the person who authored the GoFundMe donation request. Well, I'm the one who posted it.

30:04I asked who authored it, who's the person that chose these words, who wrote it? The silence between the question and Jan's answer is deafening. You can hear her wheels turning. It was the work of a friend of ours who had said that. Well, you said it was one friend that doesn't want to be involved and I'm sorry, but I need to know his name. What's his name? Well, then it was then go ahead and say it was me because I posted it. No, I'm miss Owens. You already testified. I'm saying it was the people who or friends of ours had said this is what you should do. No, you said that you indicated that there was one individual who wrote out this request for the donations and that after drafting it, that person did not want to be associated any longer with the GoFundMe due to what you call a smear campaign.

31:08I need to know the name of that. Hold on, let me finish. I need to know the name of the individual who wrote this donation request. I know you're trying to resist it. I know that person doesn't want to be involved, but they are involved. You need to give me the name of the individual, please. Well, I finalized it. I'm the one that finalized. This was informal conversation about what should be said and I finalized it and it was informal conversations with more than one friend who suggested it. So I finalized it. I posted it. Okay. So you're not going to give me the name of that individual, is that correct? Well, because it was the same. I don't want to know why I'm asking, are you going to give me the individual's name, yes or no, that you said that originally authored this? I'm saying put it on me. I'm saying I'm the one that posted it. I finalized it. But that's not what you said. You originally said somebody else drafted it and my question to you is, are you going

32:11to give me the name of the person that you testified a few moments ago, initially drafted this donation request? Are you going to give me that name, yes or no? I said that there were informal conversations. I finalized it. That there were informal conversations and it's the last minute, it was like, no, I don't want to be a part of this. I can't put my family out to be targeted by these people. So who was that person that said that to you? I finalized it. No, who was that person? Who was that person? Hold on, let me finish. Who was the individual that said to you, I don't want to be a part of this? Who was that? I don't want to get their name because, as I say, these were informal conversations. I was the one who finalized it. I'm taking full responsibility. These were informal conversations with people who said, this is what we, these are the things

33:16that we ought to say and this is what will touch people. But I finalized it. I posted it and I have administered the funds. When I first started researching this case, I was told there might be a real person behind the initials LL. A source gave me a name to look into. Someone who used to be a friend of Ron's in San Francisco. I tracked down LL and messaged him on signal. LL confirmed that he's donated once to Ron's GoFundMe. But when I asked him if he'd been the organizer, he wrote, quote, no, definitely not me. It's also not lost on me that L is Laura's initial. And the writing on this GoFundMe page sounds awfully familiar. The reason that I'm asking for this, Miss Owens, is because it's important to understand what the intent was when this was drafted. You initially said that a family friend drafted this.

34:18It's apparent to me that you are not going to give me the name of that person. I'm going to move on. But you are now saying that you're going to take full responsibility for the drafting and posting of this GoFundMe post and request for donations, correct? Yeah. Laura's parents, Ron Owens and Jan Black, were in the thick of their bankruptcy meeting of creditors and the attorney for the US trustee, Jennifer Geomo, wasn't holding back. The story quickly caught the attention of the press, making headlines of the New York post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Inside Radio. Because for the first time, we were really getting some answers about the Owens family finances. I'm going to tell you something after having gone through your bank statements, okay?

35:18The spending that you and Mr. Owens expended, the total disbursements out of all of your accounts. For the time period from December 27th, 2024 through June 25th, 2026, the total disbursements is over $523,000. Did you know that? That just, that doesn't sound right. For a year and a half. That is, well, you might not think it sounds right, but that's all disbursements out of just account 0140. Totaled over $523,000. After looking over their financial documents, Jennifer Geomo noticed how few payments the Owens had made towards medical expenses. So it raised the question, what were they spending the GoFundMe donations on? Okay, so as the person who authored and is 100% responsible for the posting of this

36:19donation request, do you recall that the post referenced Mr. Owens extreme medical troubles? Yes. Do you agree that the suggestion from this post was that you needed money to cover medical bills? No, that was not, it was simply, it was simply saying that he had extreme medical struggles and that there were financial struggles as well. They were not tied together. It was simply saying that there were medical, that he had all of these medical issues and on top of that was dealing with financial issues as well. Okay, because it's, I don't think there's anything in there that specifically says it was for medical bills. Well, it doesn't say that, but it does say, and I will quote you, these are the financial issues. These medical struggles have taken a toll both physically and financially on the man

37:22who has been a pillar of strength for so many. So you see how I tie the medical struggles to the financial because you say it right there. These medical struggles have taken a toll both physically and financially. So what did you mean by that when you put that in the donation request? Well, we have had, you know, they've, he hasn't been able to work. So he hasn't been able to do, you know, financially support the family. So yeah, there, there is that. Ron retired in 2021. He's 80 now and he receives a generous pension. He and Jan's combined pension and social security is around $21,000 a month. That information is publicly available in their bankruptcy documents. And let me ask you, were there any specific medical bills that you intended to be able to pay using GoFundMe funds?

38:22Not that I recall, but again, the way that it was phrased, the way that I recall it being phrased, it was not indicating that this was to pay for medical bills. It was that we had financial struggles as well. This was also months before, this was eight months before we filed for chapter 13. This was to be, to help us to try to avoid having the file for bankruptcy because we were in that kind of a difficult situation. Okay, well, let me just back up. You mentioned that the GoFundMe funds you, you intended to use to pay your mortgage and pay credit card bills and get out of debt. That's what you just said a few moments ago, correct? Correct. Okay, so basically, what you're really telling me is that you were using the GoFundMe to clear yourself of debt. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, we said financial struggles.

39:24According to a record filed by the US trustee, over the 18 months where their finances were reviewed, their healthcare and pharmaceutical expenses totaled around $17,000. That's only 2.7% of their net spending. During the time period where they were pulling money from the GoFundMe, around 61,000 went to mortgage payments and around 44,000 went to business expenses. Their spending also included online shopping, restaurants and food delivery, specifically exceeding $1200 per month. The bottom line is that you were saying that you wanted to pay past debt, including credit debt, right? Well, yeah, because if the credit cards weren't paid, we wouldn't have the opportunity to continue to pay for food and basic expenses. Well, Mike, for example, one of the credit cards that you deemed it necessary to generate funds from a donation through GoFundMe was Macy's.

40:28You thought it was essential to get donations to pay your Macy's bill? Um, we also. I'm asking, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Up, up, up, up, hold on. You have to answer my questions, Miss Nellar. I am asking you. Did you think it was necessary to ask for donations through GoFundMe to pay a Macy's credit card bill? We didn't ask for donations to go fund me to pay a Macy's bill. No, we did not. However, that's what you used. Hold on. However, you admit that you used GoFundMe funds to partially pay a Macy's credit card bill. Jan denies it. But there's not really a way for her to prove that she didn't use the GoFundMe donations for things like Macy's credit card bills. Because it's revealed in this hearing that the donation money was quote, co-mingled. Basically, it was put directly into their account, along with their other incomes. So, in some way, it sounds like the GoFundMe funds were being used...

41:35Well, let's just admit this. The GoFundMe funds were co-mingled with your income from pension and social security, correct? They came in specifically to my husband's account and the only thing other than the GoFundMe that comes into that account for him is his social security. And then we made transfers from his account to our main checking account to disperse for bills that needed to be paid. Jan had been specifically asked to submit an accounting of how the GoFundMe donations were used. And she turned in something. But once Jennifer Giamo starts digging into the specifics, Jan says she didn't have a full understanding of what she needed to provide. Honestly, it sounds like Jan wasn't able to determine where the funds went. I stand by what we submitted to you and, you know, as I say, I put the stuff together

42:40as fast as I could, as thorough as I could, and as transparent as I could. If you want to get the nuts and bolts on the GoFundMe, I can, you know, I just, again, I just, I think that, you know, there are people on the line who are... All right, enough. Enough. I can't miss, Miss Nail or no. I'm not going to allow you to use this as a platform to just start going off. No. Stop. I had asked very specific question. I want to at least have you admit that you provided me with a document that you titled Accounting of GoFundMe funds. Will you admit that? Yes. Okay. All right, for you. There were a few other expenses that baffled the US trustee. I see a lot of payments to Laura and to Sarah Owens. There was over $20,000 of payments to your daughter.

43:40The documents revealed that over $21,000 had been paid to their oldest daughter, Sarah Owens Navarro, with money going to her as recently as May 20, 206, the same month Ron and Jan filed this bankruptcy case. You chose to pay your daughter instead of the mortgage directly, correct? You made that choice. I'm asking you, did you make that choice? Yes or no? No, it's a yes or no question, Miss Nail or what? Did you or did you not make the decision to pay your daughter to reimburse her instead of paying the mortgage on your home? That wouldn't have paid the mortgage on that. I'm not asking that. I'm not asking that. I'm asking you chose, did you not to pay your daughter to reimburse her over $20,000 of money instead of paying that money to the mortgage fee? Is that right? That's what you did. Just admit that that's what you did because I don't know how you deny that you made that choice because that's what you did, correct? Yeah, there you go.

44:41I don't want to hear the explanation. I don't need an explanation. I just wanted you to acknowledge that that's what you did. The US trustee then turned her attention to the money that Ron and Jan had given to Laura. I am looking at your statement of financial affairs that was documented yesterday and it says that you have heard between 2024 and 2025 that you gave gifts to Laura Owens in the total amount of $19,608, correct? Correct, yeah. Okay, well tell me how you calculated that amount. From the fact that we pay for her car. No, I need to know specifically how you came up with the amount $19,608. That's a very specific amount, Ms. Naylor, and I want to know how you calculated it. Do you have an itemization somewhere that you wrote down like what it was that you included in that as gifts to your daughter?

45:43You know, I was ballparking it. You ballparked a number and said $19,608 for a ballpark figure? Well, you know, again, you're talking about day-to-day living expenses and having to go back. I was asking you, you just said that you ballparked a figure. If you were going to ballpark a figure, wouldn't it be a round number? You said $19,608. That's a very specific number. How did you ballpark a figure at $19,608? You just came up with that out of nowhere? Some made up figure? Jan couldn't come up with an answer, but Ms. Jiyama had already crunched the numbers. Take for example Laura's car and car insurance, which Jan had admitted she and Ron pay for. OK, so I just calculated if you take the amount of the car payments and the car insurance payments for a two-year period, that's over $25,000.

46:45So clearly, the figure that you gave for gifts is understated, when you say? Then balks at this, saying that the car is shared by the whole family. Separate from the $19,000 she reported in gifts to Laura, there were some other Laura-related payments. So your bank records reflect that on July 9th, 2025, you paid $1500 to Josh Colesrod. Then on July 10th, 2025, you paid $1500 to Josh Colesrod. And on July 11th, 2025, you paid $500 to Josh Colesrod. So that's total of $3,500 to Josh Colesrod, who was your daughter's criminal defense attorney at one point? Is that correct? Correct. Josh Colesrod was Laura's first criminal defense attorney. He was replaced in November 2025 by a public defender. After the court's granted Laura indigency status, the first time.

47:47Why didn't you include that? When you paid that money, was that a gift to your daughter? And was illegal expense. Well, wasn't your legal expense? It was your daughter's legal expense, right? Correct. So why isn't that included among the amount that you gifted to your daughter on your sworn statements? Again, because I don't really consider that a gift. I consider that a legal expense. Of your daughter, correct? Well, you're going to tell, you're going to claim, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, just stop. Are you going to sit here and claim that the attorney payments to your daughter's attorney, Mr. Colesrod, was anything for you other than a payment for your daughter's criminal defense? That was for her criminal defense. He was her lawyer, not your lawyer, right? Well, part of our family businesses, including our podcast, and you know, that she was a

48:55part of. So I think that helping her defend herself on that helps the family overall and the family of businesses overall. Either you admit that they were gifts or you don't. Yes or no. Just tell me yes or no. If you don't think they were gifts, say, I know, I don't think they were gifts. I would say I don't see it as a gift. I see it as an expense for the reputation of the family. Then we get to the question, everyone wants answers to. Okay. So I understand just from public information that your daughter has a private criminal defense attorney currently, correct? Correct. Are you paying for that attorney? No. Who's paying for that? I don't know. I have not addressed this with her.

49:57She knows that we don't have the funds to pay her and I know she's been... You have no idea how your daughter who lives with you and who completely relies on you for all of her support is paying for a criminal defense attorney and for pending felony counts against her. Just out your tummy, you have no idea. I'm telling you, she knows that we don't have the funds to help her at this point. And so she has reached out to others to help her with this. So you have no idea how your daughter is paying for her current criminal defense attorney. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying. No, is that what you're saying? I don't. Either you do not know or you do know. Do you know? I'm saying, we told her we can't help her with it and I know that she has reached out to others to help her and I don't know the details.

50:59Okay. So I'm expecting me to believe that the daughter that you support fully and who lives with you has not told you how she's able to pay for her criminal defense attorney currently. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Okay. At the end of this hearing, Jennifer Geomo asks Ron and Jan to come in person for a deposition. But that didn't happen. Instead, all parties agreed to dismiss the bankruptcy filing. And just a reminder, this means the filing is dismissed, not their debts. They made it official in a hearing on August 6th, 2026. This chapter 11 cases dismissed under 11 USC sexual 12B. Ron and Jan were supposed to be there in person for this final hearing. But they requested to meet on Zoom because of the summer heat in Arizona. Thank you very much for allowing us to appear via Zoom with the heat today. It's a lot more comfortable for my husband and for me.

52:00So thank you. With that, the case was over. Ron and Jan are barred from filing for bankruptcy for another two years. And at the time I'm recording this, the foreclosure auction on their home is scheduled for September 29th, 2026. But even though this bankruptcy case was dismissed, we did learn some critical information about the Owens family. They testified under oath that they're not the ones paying for Laura's current criminal defense attorney, Christian Looters. So if they're not, and Laura has filed for indigency, who's paying that bill? On August 28th, the day after this episode comes out, Laura has a settlement conference in her criminal case. There, she could take a plea deal or she could decide to go to trial, albeit the courthouse in person, along with Clayton.

53:00Do you want to make one final prediction of what you think is going to happen tomorrow? Yeah, we're going to trial. That's what you think. We're going to trial. That's my prediction. I'll gladly be wrong. But I feel very strongly that Laura, until she breaks, she won't stop. I've always been wrong, though. I've always been wrong. You always give the disclaimer. And that's why I say it, because I'm always wrong. Clayton's been making the same prediction since the beginning. I find myself aligned with Rachel Juarez, who believes Laura will eventually take a plea deal. I think I've always been less skeptical that she will take a plea deal than others. I think she will. And I think eventually that will happen. But I would be very surprised if she actually just accepted the plea deal in a straightforward way. On August 28th, that's not really her style. I don't believe she's going to do so until literally the 12th hour.

54:03Forget the 11th hour. She'll pass the 11th hour. I think she will take this to the very bitter end. Whether that includes picking a jury, starting a trial, getting to the courthouse steps. So I don't think she will accept a plea on August 28th. Then there's Greg Woodnick, who also predicts she'll accept a plea. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the resolution of the case was going to be my plea the whole time. It should Laura choose to go to trial, totally her choice. I think the outcome is significantly worse if she goes to trial, both in terms of sentencing and also the personal exposure for having the world hear everything. And one of the advantages to her plea is that she gets to control the narrative a little bit. And she gets to pick a few of the offenses that she please guilty to. And the judge will sentence her accordingly at that sentencing, which would not happen. On the settlement conference date, the court would set out a sentencing time.

55:03Once the plea was entered, Greg gets to come in and speak his peace as a victim. Clayton gets to do it, Stormy, whose ultrasound Laura borrowed would get to come in and speak their peace about what they think an appropriate resolution would be. And then the judge ultimately gets to make the decision. There's a lot of different opinions on what will happen at the settlement conference on August 28th. That's because Laura is notoriously difficult to predict. But if she does accept the plea deal, this case might finally be over. It's been a long run. And I actually think it would be healthy for everybody that it was over. And it's time to move on. But that doesn't mean over for the sake of being over. It means over within appropriate resolution and an appropriate consequence for Laura, that assures that this never happens again and that she's appropriately consequence for the damage she has done for years.

56:05As I finished my call with Woodnick, I asked him if he worries that Laura will continue the same behavior that got her here in the first place. I'm concerned, Stephanie. And I'll probably reserve comment on that until after sentencing. If you ever, ever, ever, ever try to leave. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to follow LoveTrap on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

57:07And please leave us a review. A five-star rating helps others find this show. We're grateful for your support. If you would like to reach out to the LoveTrap team or have a similar story to share, email us at LoveTrapPod at gmail.com. That's LoveTrap, P-O-D, at gmail.com. LoveTrap is a production of Glass Podcasts, a division of Glass Entertainment Group in partnership with iHeart Podcasts. This show was executive produced by Nancy Glass, Andrea Gunning, and Ben Federman. Written, produced, and hosted by me, Stephanie Young. Our story editor is Monique LeBord. Producer on this episode is Sydney Gladou. Additional production support from Todd Gans. Our production manager is Kristen Melkiri. For iHeart Podcasts, Ali Perry was our executive producer. Audio editing and mastering by Anna McLean. Additional editing support by Matt Delvecchio. Thank you to our voice actor, Carrie Hartman.

58:09This podcast was developed in collaboration with Danny Passman and LeB Abramoff at Crybaby Media. The LoveTrap theme is composed by Oliver Baines. Music library provided by Mime Music. A special thanks to Carrie Lieberman, Will Pearson, Jessica Crinecheck, Ali Cantor, and the entire iHeart Podcast team. And for more podcasts from iHeart, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.