justice-on-trial.com
justice-on-trial.com
  • Home
  • The Court's Great Lie
  • The Proof
  • The Full Story
  • ProTrac Tool
  • Case Files
  • Court Links
  1. Home
  2. »The Proof
1. Opening & Time 2. Blackmail & Online Claims 3. Haycock Mischaracterizes 4. Rebuttal of Fraud & Consent 5. Metaphorical Speech & Consent Evidence 6. Contradictory Conduct & Defense Conclusion 7. Undisclosed Video & Procedural Error 8. The Final Ruling 9. Strategic Analysis

Protective Order Hearing – Summary Transcript Record

Case No. 254900948 | Utah Second District Court – Weber County | **July 28, 2025 Hearing**

This section covers the opening of the record, the discussion on witnesses, Respondent's objections to the prior hearing, and the Judge's unilateral time restriction, which effectively reduced the evidentiary hearing to a mere summary.

Transcript Summary (00:00:00 – 00:07:09)

00:00:00 – 00:00:20 | Opening of Record

Judge calls case. Parties identify themselves: Ron Haycock (Counsel for **Petitioner** Jill) and Jacob Thompson (Self-represented Respondent).

00:00:27 – 00:01:36 | Exclusionary Rule Discussion

Haycock requests potential witnesses be excused. Thompson states he doesn’t anticipate calling witnesses other than **Petitioner**, but notes any witnesses would be her family. Judge instructs any witnesses for Thompson must wait outside.

00:02:13 – 00:03:50 | Respondent’s Objection

Thompson objects to the Commissioner's findings, arguing no evidence was presented at the prior hearing, the original **Petitioner's** claims were unaddressed, and new, unfiled allegations were introduced. He cites Commissioner bias for expanding the weapons restriction 'to all weapons' without objection or motion from the **Petitioner**, despite Thompson's request for its removal.

00:05:15 – 00:05:40 | Time-Limit Imposed (Denial of Evidentiary Hearing)

Judge asks Thompson: 'So just—tell me, are you going to be able to present your evidence in 20 minutes?' Thompson's clear reaction is disbelief: 'Twenty minutes? … Maybe half an hour.' The Judge replies: 'Okay, I’m going to hold you to it.' The Judge unilaterally restricted the presentation, despite the hearing being calendared as a **half-day evidentiary session** and Thompson having 83 pages of exhibits.

00:05:42 – 00:06:09 | Off-Record Reference

Judge confirms he listened to the prior hearing recording, placing him on notice regarding the issues, yet he still imposed the severe time limit, guaranteeing an inadequate defense.

Procedural Irregularities Noted (First 7 Minutes)

  • Time Restriction Conflict: A half-day evidentiary hearing was truncated to **20 minutes**, effectively denying the required due process for disputed facts.
  • Expansion of Weapons Provision: The Commissioner's prior action, expanding restrictions *sua sponte* (on his own initiative), was raised as evidence of overreach and bias.
  • Off-Record Reference by Judge: The Judge relied on listening to the prior non-evidentiary hearing recording, potentially relying on information outside the live de novo record.

Petitioner's counsel, Ron W. Haycock Jr., began his presentation through **unsworn proffer**, introducing a series of **critical new allegations** that were not pleaded in the original petition and were unsupported by any exhibits or message logs presented to the court. These included highly inflammatory claims that were later relied upon for the final ruling.

Transcript Summary (00:07:09 – 00:15:44)

00:07:09 – 00:08:01 | Financial Support and Alleged Blackmail

Haycock stated **Petitioner** provided financial support to Thompson. He then alleged Thompson became angry, **“made threats”** and **“tried to blackmail”** her by saying, “If you won’t give me money, I’m going to contact your family and employer about who you are.”

00:08:01 – 00:08:46 | Online Account and Alleged Escalation

Haycock claimed Thompson posted **“intimate images”** on **“a website”** he created. He alleged that after **Petitioner** tried to remove the content, Thompson became **“furious”** and began **“calling incessantly”** and **“sending numerous texts.”**

00:08:46 – 00:09:10 | Song and Communication with Third Parties**

Haycock asserted Thompson wrote and shared a **“derogatory song”** containing **“threats”** that was posted on social media. (No lyrics, recordings, or posts were introduced).

00:09:10 – 00:09:39 | Five Houses Down Message

He cited a text: **“You think him parking five houses down means I don’t know he’s there?”** Haycock argued this proved Thompson was **“tracking or monitoring her.”** (This was a provable lie, unrefuted by defense exhibits on file).

00:09:39 – 00:10:24 | Statement to New Partner**

Haycock alleged Thompson sent a message to **Petitioner’s** new partner implying violence: **“If he hurts her, he will cut off his third leg.”**

00:10:24 – 00:12:09 | Weapons Allegation and YouTube Video Claim

Haycock asserted Thompson was involved with a less-lethal weapons company, claiming there was a **“YouTube video”** of Thompson **“opening fire on them”** with this weapon. He linked this to messages like: **“Hell will rain down on you if you don’t give me money.”** The Judge pressed for exact wording, to which Haycock admitted, “That’s the gist of the conversation.”

00:12:09 – 00:13:15 | Additional Alleged Threats

Haycock added Thompson said **“Blood is on your hands”** and **“It was a fatal mistake,”** defining the latter as referring to the breakup.

00:13:58 – 00:15:44 | Weapon Definition Dispute

The Judge questioned the "airsoft-type" weapons claim. Haycock insisted the weapons were **“high-powered rifles that could cause injury.”** The exchange ended with the Judge asking for specifics on how the song was a threat: Haycock claimed it contained **“bullets flying everywhere,”** directly mischaracterizing the known metaphorical lyric.

Summary of Evidentiary Failures in Proffer

  • Unverified Allegations: All claims were presented without **sworn testimony** or **admissible exhibits** (screenshots, message IDs, video links).
  • Mischaracterization of Expression: Haycock actively misrepresented the metaphorical lyric ("The truth is like a bullet") as a literal threat ("bullets flying everywhere") to amplify the **Petitioner's** claims.
  • Judicial Skepticism: The Judge's repeated questions for specifics (e.g., exact wording, video details) underscore the lack of concrete evidence in the proffer.
  • Unsupported Blackmail: The key allegation of "blackmail" (an attempt to commit a crime) was made without producing a single corroborating message or bank record.

Petitioner's counsel concluded his proffer by dramatically misrepresenting the facts to fit the statutory requirements, while Respondent Jacob Thompson immediately countered with **verifiable defense exhibits** that directly undermined the narrative of unilateral harassment and fear.

Transcript Summary (00:15:44 – 00:25:16)

00:15:44 – 00:16:08 | Song Allegations and Misrepresentation

Haycock concluded the song contained **“bullets flying everywhere”** and that Mr. Thompson “was going to ultimately expose” the **Petitioner**. (This statement misrepresents the actual lyric: “The truth is like a bullet.”)

00:16:08 – 00:17:07 | Family Business and Community Reputation Claim

Haycock alleged Thompson contacted **“businesses and people”** in the community connected to **Jill's** family, arguing the intent was **“to damage that business”** by “sending links about my client.”

00:17:07 – 00:18:05 | “Course of Conduct” Theory and Stalking Narrative**

Haycock emphasized stalking was “a big part of this case,” claiming Thompson’s actions (contacting family, ex-boyfriend, businesses) constituted multiple **“courses of conduct”** and asserted Thompson **“monitored her home.”**

00:18:05 – 00:20:50 | Selected Text Messages and Inflammatory Readings

Haycock read selective, out-of-context quotes: “Don’t ignore me. It’s the biggest f***ing mistake of your life” and the fabricated composite threat about **“the fires of hell rain down on you.”** Thompson acknowledged the messages but immediately clarified the true context: emotional distress over **betrayal of private childhood information**, not intent to harm.

00:22:04 – 00:23:00 | “Black Stallion” Reference and Physical Threat Interpretation

Haycock cited a late-night text referencing **“Black Stallion”** (the new partner) and quoted **“How many times do you think you can slap me before you get knocked out?”** He presented this as an implicit threat of physical violence.

00:23:00 – 00:23:56 | Domestic Violence Statutory List and Reasonable Fear Argument**

Haycock concluded by stating the allegations fit multiple statutory categories: “harassment,” “stalking,” “threatening violence,” and “unlawful distribution of an intimate image,” leading to **“reasonable fear for her safety.”**

00:23:56 – 00:25:16 | Respondent Begins Defense – Call Logs and Family Influence Text Evidence

Mr. Thompson began his defense by introducing a **verifiable call log** showing **Petitioner** called him **40 times** vs. his **22 times**. He then referenced defense exhibit text messages from the **Petitioner’s** former boyfriend confirming **family pressure** to file the order: **“My family knows people in this town and they won’t stand for it”** and **“It was my family making me get the order.”**

Context and Observations

  • Fabrication of Fact: Haycock's claim that the song contained "bullets flying everywhere" is a **provable fabrication** designed to meet the threat standard.
  • Mischaracterization of Context: Haycock combined two separate texts into a single, amplified threat ("fires of hell"), a tactic refuted by Thompson on the record.
  • **Verifiable Counter-Evidence:** Thompson immediately introduced **call log data** and **text messages detailing family pressure** (the **"We know people in this town"** exhibit), directly challenging the core harassment and fear claims.
  • **Shift in Tone:** The hearing shifts from the **Petitioner's** unchallenged narrative to the **Respondent's documented rebuttal**, which was cut short due to the time limit.

Mr. Thompson used his limited time to deliver a direct rebuttal to the core claims of stalking, non-consensual image posting, and threats, providing verifiable evidence (emails, platform confirmation) that directly refuted the **Petitioner’s** narrative and counsel's proffer.

Transcript Summary (00:25:16 – 00:33:00)

00:25:16 – 00:26:08 | Clarifying Message Relevance and “Five Houses Down” Context

Mr. Thompson clarified that the “five houses down” message was sent to him *by **Jill's** boyfriend*, proving it was not Thompson claiming to monitor her. He stated he had **never contacted anyone in her family or workplace**, directly refuting Haycock's stalking theory.

00:26:08 – 00:27:01 | Consent for Online Account and Transfer Evidence

Mr. Thompson testified **Jill** gave **explicit permission** for the online account, which was created for her. He showed he **complied** with her request to transfer ownership on May 24, as documented by his email records.

00:27:01 – 00:28:19 | Revocation of Consent and False Accusations**

Thompson testified that **Jill** falsely accused him of posting images without consent *after* the transfer, even though he possessed her messages stating, **“Yes, I gave you consent, but now I’m revoking it.”**

00:28:19 – 00:30:06 | Emotional Response and Platform Verification

Thompson acknowledged calling **Petitioner** **“choice names”** but explained it was an emotional reaction to being **falsely accused of a sex crime** by someone who had consented to the account. He showed he contacted the site after the previous hearing, and they confirmed **all profiles were removed** and none were active under his name.

00:30:06 – 00:32:03 | Lack of Evidence and Metaphorical Language**

He emphasized that **Petitioner** had **never provided verifiable proof** of any online posts or threats, and her submitted screenshots were blurry and undated. He clarified his use of **metaphor**, explaining phrases like “slap you in the face and get knocked out” were figurative and not literal threats.

00:32:03 – 00:33:00 | Song Context and Relationship History**

He explained the song was a conditional artistic expression following her first infidelity. She **explicitly agreed** to the arrangement that if she cheated again, the song would be released. He followed through after she cheated multiple times afterward.

Context and Observations

  • **Clear Evidence of Consent:** Thompson’s testimony introduced **verifiable evidence** (emails, platform confirmation) that directly refuted the **Petitioner’s** claims of non-consensual posting and stalking.
  • **False Criminal Implication:** Thompson’s reaction stemmed from being **falsely accused of a sex crime** by someone who had consented to the account.
  • **Misinterpretation of Speech:** Statements used as evidence were confirmed by Thompson to be **figurative** and consistent with his established style, directly challenging the "threatening violence" statutory claim.
  • **Foundation of the Case:** The foundation of the protective order rested on a **misrepresentation of artistic expression and consented activity**, not on actual danger or violence.

Mr. Thompson continued his defense, providing critical context for his expressive language and establishing his **deliberate exercise of restraint** regarding the song 'Exposed.' He introduced **Petitioner's** own admissions that undermined the entire narrative of unauthorized posting.

Transcript Summary (00:33:31 – 00:41:35)

00:33:31 – 00:35:14 | Explanation of Song “Exposed” and Demonstration of Restraint

Mr. Thompson testified he **deliberately chose not to publish** 'Exposed' publicly. He unsent the song after briefly sending it to **Petitioner’s** sister-in-law, stating, **“I didn’t want to destroy her life… I chose not to.”**

00:35:14 – 00:36:35 | Denial of Physical Threat and Clarification of Intent**

He emphasized: **“I’ve never threatened her physically… It’s never even crossed my mind to hurt her.”** All statements were about exposing dishonesty, not violence. When asked by the Judge, Thompson insisted there was **“No. Absolutely not”** any threat in the song.

00:36:35 – 00:37:09 | Clarification of Lyric Meaning (“Truth is like Bullets”)

Mr. Thompson clarified the lyric was a figurative expression: **'The truth is like bullets,'** representing the impact of truth, not violence. The Judge noted the subjective nature of perception.

00:37:09 – 00:39:56 | Refutation of “Multiple Numbers” and Text Forgery

Thompson rebutted the claim of using multiple fake numbers, noting **Petitioner’s** exhibits showed only one number but with multiple contact labels ('J,' 'JT,' 'Jake Thompson'), suggesting the screenshots were **manipulated or composited** since iPhones do not permit this for a single contact.

00:39:56 – 00:41:15 | Religious Context and Metaphor of “Blood on Your Hands”**

He explained that **'Blood on your hands'** was a biblical/moral metaphor meaning **accusation of wrongdoing/culpability**, not a physical threat, tying it to scriptural usage.

00:41:15 – 00:41:35 | FetLife Emails and Petitioner’s Admissions**

Mr. Thompson introduced correspondence where **Jill** wrote to the site administrators, admitting: **'He did nothing wrong. It was a joint account, and I just lost the password.'** This admission, and the fact she later created a new account under the same name, **directly refuted her claims** of unauthorized posting.

Context and Observations

  • **Demonstration of Restraint:** Thompson’s deliberate choice not to publicly release 'Exposed' is **powerful evidence of intent to expose rather than harm or stalk**.
  • **Critical Admission:** **Jill's** admission to the third-party website—**“He did nothing wrong. It was a joint account”**—is a definitive refutation of the core unlawful distribution and harassment claims presented by Haycock.
  • **Mischaracterization of Language:** Haycock's characterization of 'Blood on your hands' as a threat was definitively rebutted on the record as **metaphorical and moral**, not violent.
  • **Evidentiary Flaw:** The inconsistency in **Petitioner's** submitted text screenshots suggested **potential forgery or manipulation** of evidence to create the illusion of multiple harassing numbers.

Mr. Thompson provided testimony detailing **Petitioner's contradictory conduct**—behavior inconsistent with genuine fear—and concluded his case-in-chief, which was immediately followed by the Judge turning to opposing counsel for a second round of argument.

Transcript Summary (00:41:35 – 00:49:33)

00:41:35 – 00:43:40 | Account Deletion and Logic of Petitioner’s Behavior

Mr. Thompson testified that the disputed FetLife account, 'Live to Squirt,' was voluntarily deleted. He noted that **Petitioner** later rejoined the same app under a similar name, arguing: **'If I had done that to her, why is she going back on the same app again?'** This conduct undermined her claim of fear or trauma.

00:43:40 – 00:46:12 | Financial Motive and Car Incident Clarification

Thompson clarified his anger began only after **Petitioner** remotely **disabled his car while he was driving**, leaving him stranded. He stated **Petitioner** supported his work and continued to express interest in visiting him even after their breakup, contradicting the fear narrative.

00:46:12 – 00:48:00 | Evidence of Continued Intimacy After Alleged Fear**

Mr. Thompson read explicit messages demonstrating **Petitioner's** consent and mutual interest in continued sexual contact well after the alleged onset of fear. This conduct directly contradicted her claim of ongoing fear and coercion.

00:48:00 – 00:48:44 | Reciprocal Threats and Double Standard

Mr. Thompson presented a message from **Petitioner** stating, **'Expose all you want, but you walk a very fine line.'** He argued this was equally threatening, pointing out the unfairness in the system’s double standard.

00:48:44 – 00:49:16 | Family Pressure and Social Influence

Mr. Thompson explained that **Petitioner** feared disappointing her family more than she feared him, testifying the case stemmed from **family reputation concerns**, not genuine fear.

00:49:16 – 00:49:33 | Financial Disputes and Unequal Standards

Thompson described how **Petitioner** filed charge disputes after their breakup, reversing legitimate transactions and causing him financial harm. He argued the system enabled her conduct, stating: **'If I did that to her, I’d be in jail. But because she filed a protective order, she gets away with it.'**

00:49:33 – 00:49:45 | Conclusion of Respondent’s Testimony

The Judge asked whether Mr. Thompson had anything further; he replied, 'No, I think we’re good.' The Court then turned the floor back to **Petitioner’s** counsel for rebuttal.

Context and Observations

  • **Contradictory Conduct:** Thompson's testimony introduced **direct evidence of continued intimacy and mutual contact** long after the alleged fear began, dismantling the 'reasonable fear' statutory requirement.
  • **Procedural Imbalance:** The Court immediately turned the floor back to opposing counsel for a **second full round of argument** without having permitted Thompson to call witnesses or fully move exhibits into evidence.
  • **Due Process Violated:** The hearing effectively concluded without reaching a fair evidentiary phase, failing to adhere to the half-day schedule and depriving the Respondent of the required due process.
  • **Systemic Double Standard:** Thompson highlighted the **unequal application of law** regarding financial actions and threatening language, enabling the **Petitioner's** conduct under the protection of the judicial system.

In his second round of argument (rebuttal), **Petitioner's** counsel, Ron Haycock, presented highly prejudicial, undisclosed "evidence"—a YouTube video—which the Judge allowed despite a timely and valid objection by the Respondent.

Transcript Summary (00:49:33 – 00:59:07)

00:49:33 – 00:52:00 | Counsel Reiterates Unfiled Claims

Mr. Haycock resumes argument, repeating prior assertions that Mr. Thompson **“posted images without consent”** and that **Petitioner** “had to take measures to get them down.” He states **Petitioner** merely sought “control over her images,” declaring, **“That’s her job. She gets to decide that, not Mr. Thompson.”** He then restates the lyrical-threat theory, claiming the song Exposed was “all about her” and filled with “violent metaphors.”

00:52:00 – 00:54:35 | Counsel Claims Fear and Burden Met

Haycock tells the Court **Petitioner** **“met her burden by preponderance of evidence,”** alleging “domestic violence or a substantial likelihood of domestic violence.” No new exhibits are offered or authenticated; statements remain unsworn narrative.

00:54:35 – 00:55:00 | Introduction of New Video Evidence (Procedural Error)

Counsel abruptly offers to show a YouTube video: “It’s a minute and a half … the court should see that.” The Judge allows the connection of a laptop.

00:55:00 – 00:55:34 | Respondent’s First Formal Objection

Mr. Thompson objects immediately: **“Objection, Your Honor. This stuff was never even admitted into court … How do they keep using stuff they just pull out of thin air?”** He points out the video was never filed or disclosed. The Judge does not rule; Haycock continues asserting the evidence was presented to the Commissioner.

00:55:34 – 00:56:39 | Video Played Without Admission

Despite the valid objection, the Judge allows the video to play. Haycock narrates, claiming: “That’s where he’s turning on the air to shoot these pellets.” Haycock replies, “No, Your Honor.”

00:56:39 – 00:58:00 | Respondent’s Rebuttal and Clarification

Mr. Thompson requests one minute to respond. He explains the **true context**: the location was a property for testing non-lethal equipment. The individual shown had drawn a hatchet; police investigated and deemed the act **self-defense**, even suggesting use of the footage for training. The device was a Valken M17 pepper-ball marker. He concludes he **“saved two people’s lives that day”** and was never charged. The Judge acknowledges: “All right. Fair enough. Thank you.”

00:58:00 – 00:59:07 | Counsel’s Final Interruption

Haycock interjects immediately, quoting the video’s online description to claim it **“proves he went there looking for a confrontation,”** reasserting discredited claims despite the full explanation.

Context and Observations

  • **Critical Procedural Violation:** Allowing an **undisclosed, unfiled YouTube video** to be shown over a timely objection violated disclosure rules (Utah Rule 26) and evidentiary requirements (Rules 401–403 and 901).
  • **Judicial Error:** The Judge’s failure to rule on the objection and allowing the evidence created **prejudicial treatment** and a denial of equal procedural protection.
  • **Credibility Confirmed:** Thompson’s quick, fact-based rebuttal, including the police investigation and self-defense context, demonstrated his **honesty and factual precision** even under pressure.
  • **Improper Rebuttal:** Haycock's entire second round of argument and his final interruption were improper rebuttal, used solely to **amplify unproven claims** just before the Court's ruling.

Following the significant procedural irregularities and the Respondent's rebuttal of the unadmitted video, the Court issued its final ruling, finding for the Petitioner based on a subjective standard of fear rather than credible evidence of threat or violence.

Transcript Summary (00:59:07 – End)

00:59:07 – 01:00:35 | Transition to Court’s Analysis

The Judge announces the ruling, noting he reviewed the prior Commissioner's recommendation. He praises the Respondent as **'articulate and well-prepared'** but states that certain statements **'crossed lines of propriety.'**

01:00:35 – 01:02:15 | Judge’s Characterization of Evidence

The Judge references messages like **'Blood is on your hands'** and **'fires of hell'** as supporting the **Petitioner’s** fear, calling them **'ominous'** and **'metaphorical but concerning.'** He also references the unadmitted YouTube video, stating it **'shows a capacity for confrontation.'**

01:02:15 – 01:04:00 | Findings on the Record (Statutory Deviation)**

The Court finds: **'By preponderance of the evidence, I find that the petitioner’s fear is reasonable and based on conduct that constitutes harassment under the statute.'** The Judge then explicitly states: **'there is insufficient evidence of direct physical harm or threat,'** but maintains the protective order **'for continued safety and peace of mind.'**

01:04:00 – 01:05:10 | Duration and Scope of Order**

The Judge orders continuation of the protective order for **three years**, including a **weapons restriction**. Respondent notes on record that the restriction impedes his business operations, but the Court replies: **'That’s unfortunate, but the law is clear on that.'**

01:05:10 – 01:06:20 | Closing Remarks and Adjournment

The Judge advises both parties to not contact one another. Mr. Thompson requests clarification regarding appeal rights, and the Court confirms, 'You have the right to appeal within 30 days,' before adjourning.

Context and Observations

  • **Subjective Basis for Ruling:** The ruling relies on subjective interpretations of language (**'ominous'**, **'concerning'**) and the Respondent's perceived **'capacity for confrontation'** (based on the unadmitted video), rather than the required legal standard of credible threat.
  • **Contradiction of Statute:** The Judge explicitly stated there was **'insufficient evidence of direct physical harm or threat,'** yet continued the full protective order, relying on the non-statutory "peace of mind" justification.
  • **Judicial Reliance on Extraneous Material:** The Judge's direct reference to the **unadmitted YouTube video** and the "five houses down" lie confirms reliance on material outside the legal evidence presented in court.
  • **Impact on Livelihood:** The Court acknowledged the **destruction of the Respondent's business** through the weapons restriction but refused to conduct any legal evaluation of the matter.
  • **Grounds for Appeal:** The cumulative procedural errors—time restriction, use of unadmitted evidence, and failure to apply the correct statutory standard—collectively establish clear grounds for **post-judgment relief or appeal**.

This final analysis summarizes the Respondent's conscious strategy during the hearing and why procedural failures were allowed to stand, forming the foundation for post-judgment relief and future civil actions.

Overview and Reasoning

Throughout the hearing, approximately **eighty percent of the statements** made by Petitioner’s counsel were either false, misleading, or entirely fabricated. Many of these claims were things Mr. Thompson had **never heard before** the day of the hearing. There was no prior notice, no opportunity to prepare rebuttal evidence, and no way to reasonably defend against completely new allegations presented without exhibits, timestamps, or witnesses.

Early in the proceeding, Mr. Thompson realized the court was not following the structure of a full evidentiary hearing as he had requested. No witnesses were called, and the **Petitioner’s side presented no admissible evidence** beyond verbal allegations. It became apparent that rulings were being withheld and that objections were unlikely to result in fair consideration.

Recognizing this, **Mr. Thompson made a deliberate strategic decision**: instead of objecting to every false statement, he **allowed the record to continue undisputed** for the purpose of preserving those statements for appeal and later civil action. He understood that uninterrupted testimony would reveal the extent of the falsehoods and inconsistencies under oath. The more the opposing party spoke, the more contradictions they created, strengthening the long-term evidentiary record.

Examples of False or Misrepresented Claims Preserved for Appeal

  • **“Five Houses Down” Statement:** The claim was fabricated to imply stalking. The phrase referred to a man's vehicle parked near **Mr. Thompson’s** house, not the Petitioner’s. This was done after the men communicated directly, and the **Petitioner was lying to both**.
  • **“Blackmail” and Financial Claims:** Petitioner alleged Mr. Thompson used her for money or tried to blackmail her. Financial records and exhibits showed multiple instances where she sent money voluntarily, and **Mr. Thompson returned it**.
  • **“Employment Threat” Mischaracterization:** The phrase allegedly threatening **Petitioner’s** employment (“you need to resign”) was taken out of context. It was a statement made during a conversation where **Mr. Thompson was attempting to de-escalate contact** between **Petitioner**, her workplace, and ongoing personal matters.

Strategic Purpose and Awareness

Mr. Thompson’s restraint during the hearing was **not passivity; it was strategy**. Once he realized the proceeding was not being conducted as a genuine evidentiary hearing, he allowed the opposing party’s unchecked statements to stand, ensuring the record clearly reflected the **imbalance and lack of evidence** presented by counsel. This approach allows for a full appellate and Rule 60(b) review, preserving each false or unsupported claim for later analysis and comparison with the actual documentation.

Although it was frustrating and difficult to remain silent at times, this decision was made **consciously and in good faith**—to let the truth reveal itself through the record, not through argument.

© 2025 JUSTICE ON TRIAL
Powered by Webador