Waiting for the Truth | EP 16

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. This is Matt Rogers from Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang from Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. You know when people try a new food and suddenly it's like, okay, hold on, I got a new favorite food. That's the reaction a lot of people are having when they first try Kewpie mayo. Yeah, it's the one with the red cap and the little baby on the bottle. You've probably seen it at the grocery store. And this mayo is different. Most mayonnaise uses whole eggs. Kewpie only uses egg yolks, which gives it this rich umami flavor. It's smoother, deeper, almost buttery. Once people try it, they start putting it on everything. Egg sandwiches, fries, burgers. Chefs use it. Restaurants use it. People who really care about flavor use it. Put it on just about anything. Then you'll understand. Kewpie, the original Japanese mayonnaise. Jan on the street. Hi, it's Jan from Toyota. Summer's not over at the national sales event. So I'm taking to the streets to see how people are keeping summer fun going with a new Toyota. Excuse me, sir. How are you making summer last longer with your Toyota? Dropping my BZ to the park to play kickball with friends. Kickball is life. Love the passion. Jan on the street. Event ends August 31st. Dealer inventory may vary. See your participating Toyota dealer for details. Toyota, let's go places. Cha-ching. That's the sound of Lowe's Labor Day Savings. Get up to 45% off. Select major. And save up to an additional $100 on select laundry pairs. Plus, get three bags of Miracle-Gro 0.75 cubic foot garden soil for just $10. Labor Day deals are on now at Lowe's. In-store and online. Valid through 9-9. While supplies last. Selection varies by location. See Lowe's.com for more details. Soil offer excludes Alaska and Hawaii. I'm Glenn Washington. This is Snap Judgment from KQED. When everything is falling apart, what do you do? Hurricane Helene shut everything down. No roads, no cars, no way through. But his daughter was getting married. And somehow, someway, he was going to walk her down that aisle. All systems down. A new Snap Judgment miniseries from KQED. Wherever you get your podcasts. 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. I 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. Is it 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. 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 got 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 silent 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 to the last second. And it's like she already has a game plan. And it's going to probably work because it hasn't 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 Trapped. There's no way out You'd better believe I'll be raising holy hell my love If you ever, ever, ever, ever Try to leave If you ever, ever, ever, ever 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, which was granted. However, after a second set of indictments came down in November 2025, she had to make the same request and 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 and 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, but 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, it indicates that you had zero income, so no income from wages or operating a business, correct? Correct. And so for what time period were you saving that you had no income for? I mean, I haven't ever in my life had no income. I haven't had like a 1099 or W-2 job, but I've, you know, really been supported by my family. So never in your life have you received a 1099 or a W-2 from any business, including your own businesses? Correct, never. 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. I reached out to Clayton and 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 Luters. While it's unclear who's footing that bill, it begs the obvious question. If she could be represented 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. According 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 he had to withdraw and that reason why sort of makes sense. And 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 Ms. Owens in the family paternity matter. That debt is still outstanding against Ms. Owens. Any income defendant receives and any assets she acquires are subject to garnishment toward the 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. My frustration went away pretty quickly when I saw the clusterfuck 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. This is CR-22. 20-25-007-905, State v. Laura Michelle Owens. Time set for a final trial management conference. Can I get appearances, please? Good morning. Good morning. Christian Drew on behalf of Ms. Owens is present with me at the podium. After entering their appearances, the parties confirmed the August 28th settlement conference and began setting a new trial date. Ms. Owens, you need to be in my courtroom on August 28th at 2.30 for a settlement conference. Then you have an FTMC October 21st, date 45 before. For me, trial assignment's October 28th at 9 o'clock before the trial assignment judge. If you fail to appear, warrant will issue for arrest. If you don't show up for trial, 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 Winnick about Laura's defense strategy, if she does go to trial. It's hard for me to put myself in her defense attorney's shoes because I've seen so much, not all, but so much of the evidence against her. And 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. And I'm 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. 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? Yes, 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 felony 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. She could also not accept the plea deal, change her mind and ask for another one right up until the moment the jury announces its verdict in open court. But if she does accept the plea deal, that will change everything. She won't go to trial. Here's more of my conversation with Laura. Here's 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. And, you know, I find it interesting because as you asked me that question, like 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? Like 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? If you go on the 28th, then what do you think you'll say? I mean, I assume, again, this hearing is going to be a matter of like, 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 there'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, 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 would 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? It's interesting because of how she reacted last time. And I know she listens to everything that I put out. So she obviously heard the whole like. We locked eyes and then I was confused and what message she was trying to spread. So 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 childlike version of Laura and 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 from 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, ah, that makes sense. Connecting of dots and it's closure. That's what it is. Laura's truth holds so much closure for all of us involved. This is Matt Rogers from Lost Culture East with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang from Lost Culture East with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. You know, when people try a new food and suddenly it's like, wait, that's the reaction a lot of people are having when they first try Kewpie Mayo. It's the one with the red cap and the little baby on the bottle. You've probably seen it in the grocery store before. And if you've ever just walked past it, some people would say that's a huge. Huge mistake. Because this mayo is different. It's smoother, deeper, and almost buttery. Some fans even swear by dipping pizza crust in it. And once you notice it, you start seeing it everywhere. Chefs use it. Restaurants use it. Never tried it? Grab the bottle with the red cap next time you're at the store. Put it on the table. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for a 12-month plan required. Dollars per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. May slow when network is busy. See terms. NYX, that's K-N-I-X, leak-proof underwear, is made for real life. Because when your day is already full, your underwear shouldn't be something you have to think about. NYX gives you reliable leak-proof protection that fits seamlessly into your routine. For periods, for light bladder leaks, for workouts, for everyday freshness. NYX leak-proof underwear comes in a range of absorbencies, from light to ultra. So if you need a little backup. For all-day protection, there's a pair for you. Unlike bulky protection, NYX feels barely there with soft fabrics, moisture-wicking layers, and anti-odor technology that keeps you feeling fresh and confident. Wear them to work, running errands, traveling, even overnight. Plus, they're machine washable, so you can wear them again and again. Find your perfect level of protection at KNIX.com and get 15% off with code FLOW15. That's KNIX.com, code FLOW15. That's Nix.com. Evan, this is Joe. And this is Nick from Hey Jonas. You know, I recently learned that every 36 minutes, another child in the U.S. is diagnosed with cancer. Think about that for a second. Some of the bravest warriors you'll ever meet aren't professional athletes or superheroes. They're kids in this fight. And every day, these young warriors face challenges most adults couldn't imagine. Yet they continue to show up with incredible courage, determination, and hope. That's why we're proud to support Hyundai Hope on Wheels. For the past 28 years, with support from Hyundai, their dealers, and every new Hyundai sold, Hope on Wheels has contributed over $300 million to childhood cancer research, helping save more than 40,000 kids. But we're not done yet. We need your help. Together, let's bring every warrior home. Learn more at hyundaiusa.com slash hopeonwheels or ask about Hope on Wheels at your local Hyundai dealer. In 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 in her case with Mike Maricini. 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 appeals, 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 Juarez, 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 what's happened. She's gotten another extension. Appellate 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 out, 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 evidences 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. So she's just, 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 to hire appellate counsel. 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, 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. For 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 Wansley 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 Giaimo. I'm an attorney with the United States Trustee's 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 name 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 Ms. Naylor and Mr. Owens separately? Yes, this is Elizabeth Ann Naylor, and I am a pro se in this case. And I'm Ronald Stephen Owens. Pro se 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 to penalty of perjury. Do you understand that? I do, yes. Okay. Before this hearing, Ron and Jan submitted many financial documents, and Jennifer Giammo 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, 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, yeah. Okay, you're saying that, but you're not getting any 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. But 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, you know, done anything at all. To save the house at that point. Do you know whether the foreclosure is going to proceed? We 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 Giammo 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 situation 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 mayor campaign against us, did not want their name attached to it. I have administered the funds. The funds were going into my husband's account and I administered them going to pay the bills after that. But I need to know the name of the person. The person who authored the GoFundMe donation request. Well, I'm the one who posted it. I 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 friends of ours who had said this. Well, you said it was one person. 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 go ahead and say it was me because I posted it. No, I'm not. Miss Owens, you already testified. I'm saying it was people who were friends of ours had said this is what you should do. No, you said that you indicated that there was one individual who, 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. I need to know the name of that. Hold on. Let me finish. I need, 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. So you need to give me the name of the individual. Well, I finalized it. I'm, I'm the one that finalized it. This was informal. These were informal conversations about what should be said. And I, I finalized it. And it was informal conversations with, you know, more than one friend who suggested. So I, 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, 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 I'm the one that posted it. I, I finalized it. But that's not, but that's not what you said. You originally said somebody else drafted it. And my question to you is, are you going to 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 at the last minute, it was like, no, I don't want to be a part of this. I don't, I can't have, I can't put my family out to be targeted by these people. So who was that person that said that to you? I, I finalized it. No, I, who was that? 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, to give their name because as I say, these were, 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 that we ought to say. And, and this is what will touch people. But I finalized it. I, I posted it and I have administered, um, the, the, the funds. 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, Ms. Owens, is because it's important to understand what the intent was when this was drafted. And you initially said that a family friend drafted this, but it's apparent to me that you are not going to give me the name of that person. So 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. This is Matt Rogers from Lost Culture East. That's with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang from Lost Culture East. You know, when people try a new food and suddenly it's like, wait, that's the reaction. A lot of people are having when they first, try Kewpie mayo. And if you've ever just walked past it, some people would say that's a huge mistake. If you notice it, you start seeing it everywhere. Chefs use it. Restaurants use it. Never tried it? NYX, that's K-N-I-X, leak-proof underwear is made for real life. For periods. For light bladder leaks. For workouts. For everyday freshness. So if you need a little backup, or all-day protection, there's a pair for you. Find your perfect level of protection at KNIX.com, and get 15% off with code FLOW15. That's NYX.com. Hey, this is Kevin. This is Joe. You know, I recently learned that every 36 minutes, another child in the US is diagnosed with cancer. And every day, these young warriors face challenges. Most adults couldn't imagine. We need your help. Learn more at HyundaiUSA.com/HopeOnWheels, or ask about Hope on Wheels at your local Hyundai dealer. All systems down. A new Snap Judgment mini-series from KQED, wherever you get your podcasts. Laura's parents, Ron Owens and Jan Black, were in the thick of their bankruptcy meeting of creditors, and the attorney for the U.S. trustee, Jennifer Giammo, wasn't holding back. The story quickly caught the attention of the press, making headlines in 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? The 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. in a house? 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 Giammo 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 donation 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 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'd 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, nothing in there that specifically says it was for medical bills. Well, don't. It doesn't say that, but it does say, and I will quote you, these medical struggles have taken a toll both physically and financially on the man who 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. He hasn't been able to work, so he hasn't been able to do, you know, financially support the family. So, yeah, 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? Not 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. This was eight months before we filed for Chapter 13. This was to be. To help us to try to avoid having to 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 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. According to a record filed by the U.S. trustee, over the 18 months where their finances were reviewed, their health care and pharmaceutical expenses totaled around $17,000. That's only 2.7% of their net spending. During the time period where they were pulled out of debt, or 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 $1,200 per month. The bottom line is that you were saying that you wanted to pay past debt, including credit card debt, right? Well, yeah, because if the credit cards weren't paid, we wouldn't have, you know, we wouldn't be able to get out of debt. We wouldn't be able to get out of debt. So, you know, 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. You thought it was essential to get donations to pay your Macy's bill? Um, we also- I'm asking, no, no, no, no, no, hold on. You have to answer my questions, Ms. Naylor. 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 GoFundMe 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- to 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- well, let's just admit this. The GoFundMe funds were co-mingled with your- 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 pay a Macy's credit card bill because she didn't want to pay a Macy's credit card bill. Jan had been specifically asked to submit an accounting of how the GoFundMe donations were used. And she turned in something. But once Jennifer Giammo 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've put this stuff together as fast as I could, as thorough as I could, and as transparent as I could. So 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, Ms. Naylor, no. I'm not going to allow you to use this as a platform to just- Just start going off. No, stop. I had asked a 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. Yes, of course. There were a few other expenses that baffled the U.S. trustee. I see a lot of payments to Laura and to Sarah Owens. There was over $20,000 of payments to your daughter. The 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 2026, 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, Ms. Naylor. What did you or did you not make the decision? What did you or did you not make the decision to pay your daughter to reimburse her instead of pay the mortgage on your home? That wouldn't have paid the mortgage on her. 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? Yes, but again. There you go. I 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 U.S. 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 docketed yesterday and it says that you have for between 2024 and 2025, that you gave gifts to Laura Owens in the total amount of $19,608, correct? Correct, yes. 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? you know i was ballparking it you ballparked a number and said 19 608 dollars for a ballpark figure well you know again you're talking about day-to-day living expenses and having to go back no i'm asking you you just said that you ballparked a figure if you're going to ballpark a figure wouldn't it be a round number you said 19 608 dollars that's a very specific number how did you ballpark a figure at 19 608 dollars you just came up with that out of nowhere it's a made-up figure jan couldn't come up with an answer but miss giamo had already crunched some numbers take for example laura's car and car insurance which jan had admitted she and ron pay for okay 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 so clearly the figure that you gave for gifts is understated wouldn't you say jan 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 fifteen hundred dollars to josh colesrud then on july 10 2025 you paid fifteen hundred dollars to josh colesrud and on july 11 2025 you paid five hundred dollars to josh colesrud so that's total of thirty five hundred dollars to josh colesrud who was your daughter's criminal defense attorney at one point is that correct correct josh colesrud was laura's first criminal defense attorney he was replaced in 19 608 dollars to josh colesrud and on july 10 2025 you paid fifteen hundred dollars to josh colesrud and on july 10 2025 you paid fifteen hundred dollars to josh colesrud by a public defender after the courts granted laura indigency status the first time why didn't you include that in it was that when you paid that money was that a gift to your daughter it was a legal expense well it 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 i don't really consider that a gift i consider that a legal expense of your daughter correct well you're gonna you're gonna 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 colesrud was anything for you other than a payment for your daughter's criminal defense attorney you're going to claim that the attorney payments to 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 um and you know that she was a part of so i think that um helping her defend herself on that helps the uh the family overall and and the family 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'm i'm saying i don't 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 too 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 she knows that we don't have the funds to pay her and i know she's been uh you have no idea how you're going to pay her 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 is that what you're telling me 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're details of it i don't know 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 either you do not know or you do know do you know i'm 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 okay so you're 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 giamo 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 case is dismissed under 11 usc section 1112 b 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 and for me so 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 i'll be at the courthouse in person along with clayton do 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 is going to be the one 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 forget the 11th hour she'll push it past the 11th hour and she'll push it past the 11th hour and she'll push it past 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 by plea the whole time should laura choose to go to trial 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 pleading is that she gets to control the narrative a little bit and she gets to pick a few of the offenses that she pleads 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 once the plea was entered greg gets to go to trial and she gets to pick a few of the offenses that she gets to come in and speak his piece as a victim clayton gets to do it stormy whose ultrasound laura borrowed would get to come in and speak their piece 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 listen it's been a long run and i actually think it would be healthy for everyone everybody if 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 with an appropriate resolution and an appropriate consequence for Laura that assures that this never happens again and that she's appropriately consequenced for the damage she has done for years. As 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. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to follow Love Trapped on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. If you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up. A five-star rating helps others find this show. We're grateful for your support. If you would like to reach out to the Love Trapped team or have a similar story to share, email us at lovetrappedpod at gmail.com. That's lovetrapped, P-O-D, at gmail.com. Love Trapped 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, and I. and Ben Fetterman. Written, produced, and hosted by me, Stephanie Young. Our story editor is Monique Laborde. Producer on this episode is Sydney Gladue. Additional production support from Todd Gans. Our production manager is Kristen Malkiri. For iHeart Podcasts, Allie Perry was our executive producer. Audio editing and mastering by Anna McClain. Additional editing support by Matt DelVecchio. Thank you to our voice actor, Carrie. This podcast was developed in collaboration with Danny Passman and Leb Abramoff at Crybaby Media. The Love Trapped theme is composed by Oliver Baines. Music library provided by Mibe Music. A special thanks to Carrie Lieberman, Will Pearson, Jessica Kreincheck, Allie Cantor, and the entire iHeart Podcast team. And for more podcasts from iHeart, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Some people use ChatGPT to answer questions. Others use it to get real work done. With ChatGPT work, you bring the goal, plus real inputs like briefs, notes, files, feedback, data, and project plans. It can help turn them into an analysis, tracker, deck outline, prototype, or workflow you can review and keep shaping. You stay in control, giving direction and choosing the final output. Put ChatGPT to work on your most important tasks. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting Work Mode. Available on Plus and Pro plans. Less thing to figure out. Learn more at B of A dot com slash earn 100. Terms and conditions apply. Bank of America and a member FDIC. We learned how to love dogs from the dogs that loved us and waited for us to get home from school. They were the dogs that raised us. We returned the love with pedigree dog food. It was good then, and it's better now. Every bowl has 100% complete nutrition, supporting six health essentials, and now it includes vitamin good. A nutrient boost your dog will love. Pedigree. Good then, better now. Hands off us. M&M's Popped Caramel. It's more fun together. Guaranteed human.