IV. Plaintiff’s Fabrication of a False Affirmative Defense (Nos. 17-19)

Allegations 17-19 concern Plaintiff’s fabrication of a false affirmative defense blaming his wife for everything. Once the Google evidence connected Real MCSO to his computer, Plaintiff was caught red-handed, which should have ended it, save for an appropriate sanction.

Instead, Plaintiff and Horwitz continued to deny knowledge, discounted the Google evidence, and launched an aggressive counter-offense10 intended to misdirect the Magistrate Judge in the hope he would throw up his hands and direct the parties to get along.

But the hope evaporated when the Magistrate Judge referred the matter to this Court.

Plaintiff knew then the smokescreen would not work on its own and his only way out would be to claim another person with full 10 Horwitz attempted to distract the Magistrate Judge, as he did this Court, with empty accusations based upon the release of Milliman’s deposition and Plaintiff’s domestic violence report, as well as defense counsel’s role in an internal investigation and the late disclosure of a CD of an interview with Plaintiff during an internal investigation, even after the Magistrate Judge had dispelled those issues. (See Dkt. 282, 291, 306, 309, 323, 326, 331, 399; see also Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motions (Dkt. 338), which sets forth Defendants’ position with regard to those motions.) access to his computer reviewed and posted the documents on Real MCSO and he was unaware of it all.

And so, six weeks after the Magistrate’s referral and six months after Defendants first confronted him with proof he posted the documents, Plaintiff sought to file unspecified evidence from his wife under seal. (Dkt. 346.) Ultimately, a week before the evidentiary hearing began, Mrs. Seipler testified in a deposition she was solely responsible for all that Defendants attributed to Plaintiff  regarding both blogs. (See generally R.S. Dep.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s sole defense to virtually all of the allegations against him is that in May 2011, Mrs. Seipler happened to pick up a folder in the den, which happened to contain 51 of almost 3000 disciplinary file documents that had been disclosed to Plaintiff, that happened to concern matters she had discussed with her husband and other deputies in the past, which she later happened to post on Real MCSO from the Seiplers’ home computer. (Id. at 44-46, 55-56, 70-71.)

After deleting that site, simply because “there’s no need for it anymore” (id. at 98), she claims to have created Shadow to further “vent.” (Id. at 84, 89.)

She claims to have accessed and read documents, created blogs, and posted documents, commentary and pictures for over two and a half months from the Seiplers’ home computer, from which Plaintiff blogged daily, without him having so much as a hint of her involvement.

But in order to sell these brazen declarations, the Seiplers faced a mountain of counterintuitive obstacles, including:

(1) why would Mrs. Seipler review, alter, and publicly post files disclosed in her husband’s case, concerning her husband’s former employer and political opponent;

(2) why and how did Mrs. Seipler hide her document review and blogging from Plaintiff;

(3) how did she create Real MCSO with Plaintiff’s email address; and

(4) why did Plaintiff fail to alert the Court to the evidence until December 2011?

The answers to these questions collectively reveal the fabrication of this defense and the magnitude of the unseemly fraud the Seiplers perpetrated on this Court.

= = = = =

Part 9 tomorrow.