Why would Mrs. Seipler review, alter, and publicly post the documents?
The Seiplers explained that Mrs. Seipler reviewed and posted the documents because she was frustrated with the Sheriff’s harsh treatment of Plaintiff, to expose other deputies’ conduct, and because of her fears as a result of the revelations in Milliman’s deposition, which culminated n the murder of his brother six months later. (Tr. 1383-86, 1467-68; see also 336-39.)
This house of cards collapsed.
Initially, Mrs. Seipler’s effort to attribute a paralyzing fear for her family’s safety to Milliman’s delusional ramblings was impossible to credit.
The Seiplers’ contention that Milliman’s stories caused them to fear for their lives, hide guns in their house, put up barricades, keep the shades drawn, and begin blogging for protection, was bad fiction. [FN11] (Id. at 336-39, 395-96, 460, 465-66, 1362-63, 1366, 1386, 1467-68, 1490-93, 1583, 1596.)
But beyond that, her effort to link that fear with the anonymous postings on Real MCSO made no sense.
She testified Plaintiff explained to her that the Sheriff would be reticent to retaliate against Plaintiff because he publicly criticized the Sheriff. (Id. at 1595-97.)
She explained Plaintiff was primarily concerned about personal retaliation, while she was worried about herself and the children, and she needed to protect them. (Id. at 1597.)
Mrs. Seipler could not explain, however, how her purported desire to protect her children and herself could be advanced through postings on an anonymous blog that could not be linked to her. (Id. at 1597-98.)
= = = = =
FN11 Plaintiff began blogging about Sheriff Nygren in late 2009, when Plaintiff began his own campaign for Sheriff. (See generally Ex. 32.)
During his campaign, Plaintiff created the email address SKNout4good@gmail.com (Tr. 275), which stands for “Sheriff Keith Nygren out for good” and which was used to create Plaintiff’s acknowledged blog, as well as Real MCSO. (Ex. 33 at ¶ 20.)
Plaintiff simply never stopped blogging, even after an embittering political defeat.
Thus, the contention that the Seiplers blogged because they feared the Sheriff due to Milliman’s tales of corruption involving Rivera and even a respected judge, which included extortion, bribery, human trafficking, and murder, was well beyond the pale.
Aside from there being no corroboration for his theories, Milliman was impeached with an admission to significant memory loss when these crimes allegedly occurred (Tr. 1168-74), as well as his failure to report any of this to authorities for years. (Id. at 1147-51.)
While the state-of-mind exception to hearsay allowed Plaintiff and Horwitz to litter the courtroom with Milliman’s delusions, their exploitation of Milliman and his brother’s murder was shameful.
= = = = =
Second, the contrived nature of Mrs. Seipler’s explanation was exposed when she was confronted with the fact that Kurt Milliman’s murder, which she had described as having put her “over the edge,” actually occurred on May 28, which was the day after the Google evidence established Real MCSO was created. (Id. at 1535-36; Ex. 33 at ¶ 20.)
Faced with this evidence, Mrs. Seipler tried to explain she may have created the site before the murder when “playing around” with the computer, but reviewed and decided to post the documents after, and because of, the murder. (Tr. 1534-40, 1544, 1552-54.)
As a result, Mrs. Seipler tried in vain to contend that, while Kurt Milliman’s murder may have post-dated her creation of the site, it was still a catalyst for her review of and posting of the documents on the site. (Id. at 1552-54.)[FN12]
But that explanation collapsed as well.
For one thing, it left her with no plausible explanation for why she created the site before the murder.
Moreover, her concerted effort to create a couple of days distance between her creation of Real MCSO and her posting of the documents was flatly contradicted by her deposition testimony, where she conceded she could have posted the documents on the same day she reviewed them and created the blog. (Id. at 1537-45.)
Since Mrs. Seipler could not explain this discrepancy, she and Horwitz incredulously insisted there simply was no discrepancy. (Id. at 1537-45.)
To the contrary, Mrs. Seipler’s deposition testimony that her review and posting of the documents could have occurred on the same day Real MCSO was created eviscerated the Seiplers’ contention that Kurt Milliman’s murder motivated any of her actions in connection with Real MCSO.
= = = = =
FN12 Moreover, neither Plaintiff nor Mrs. Seipler had any legitimate basis on which to suspect the Sheriff of any involvement in Kurt Milliman’s murder. (Tr. 535-40, 1382-83, 1556-60.) And, Scott Milliman conceded as much. (Id. at 1140-41.)
= = = = =
Part 10 tomorrow.