Part 10 – Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Argument that Zane Seipler Should Be Held in Contempt of Court for Posting Secret Documents on the Internet

  1. How did Mrs. Seipler hide her document review and blogging from Plaintiff?

Since Plaintiff’s affidavit denied any knowledge of Real MCSO’s creator, or how that person obtained the documents, the Seiplers had to, and did, testify Plaintiff was blissfully unaware of Mrs. Seipler’s blogging activities. (Tr. 335-37, 341-43, 1489-90.)

However, Mrs. Seipler’s contention that she hid her review of and posting of the documents to Real MCSO in late May and June, and her creation and administration of Shadow from mid-June through mid-August, imploded under a mountain of countervailing facts.

Specifically, in mid-2011, Plaintiff was out of work, at home, and blogging from the Seiplers’ home computer on a daily basis. (Id. at 277, 304-05, 320, 1586-87; Ex. 32.)

Mrs. Seipler, by contrast, was overworked to the tune of 50-60 hours per week, stressed, and lacking time for her children. (Id. at 1357-58, 1371, 1376-77, 1467, 1499-1500, 1531-33, 1586-87, 1646.)

Nonetheless, Plaintiff explained “my wife used to regularly read motions that were filed in my case, and I used to talk about the case with her all the time.” (Id. at 317.)

Mrs. Seipler also testified she assisted Plaintiff with his blog, which, like Real MCSO and Shadow, was created and administered from the Seiplers’ home computer and devoted to criticizing MCSO. (Id. at 1586, 1591-92, 1602, 1661.)

In fact, the Seiplers testified they clashed because Mrs. Seipler posted commentary about Plaintiff online, including one which led Plaintiff to warn her she would have people thinking it was him. (Id. at 435-38, 1473, 1480-82, 1591-92.)[FN13]

= = = = =

FN13 Mrs. Seipler denied her husband’s testimony that Plaintiff told her she would have people thinking it was he who posted the commentary. (Compare Tr. 435-38 with 1591-92.)

= = = = =

Further, Mrs. Seipler conceded that, after Real MCSO went live, Plaintiff viewed it and they discussed that “somebody’s posting this stuff,” regarding the personnel files (id. at 1616-17), the same documents disclosed to Plaintiff during discovery.

According to her, though they discussed the site, they did not discuss who they thought the anonymous poster might be. (Id. at 1614-18.)

Plaintiff, in stark contrast, denied ever having a conversation with her, or anyone else, other than his lawyers, about the confidential documents on the Internet until August 2011. (Id. at 294.)

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was accused in Defendants’ original motion of having posted the documents, based on the fact they were not disclosed to anyone other than Plaintiff’s counsel, and identical redactions appeared on both the blog and the corresponding discovery production. (Ex. 7.)

Still, Mrs. Seipler continued to insist, incredibly, that while they did discuss Real MCSO and Shadow, and possibly the motion for sanctions, Plaintiff somehow never asked, and Mrs. Seipler did not volunteer, that she was the creator of Real MCSO. (Tr. 1613-18, 1633-35, 1755-56.)

If Mrs. Seipler had truly been responsible for Real MCSO, the likelihood of such a discussion never occurring in the face of the foregoing facts is zero.

= = = = =

Part 11 tomorrow.


Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>