How did Mrs. Seipler hide her document review and blogging from Plaintiff? (continued)
Further, the likelihood that Plaintiff would not have learned about her blogging on his own over two and a half months, even if they had not discussed it, was also around zero.
The Seiplers shared a home and a computer, from which Plaintiff was blogging daily about this case and/or MCSO.
A review of Real MCSO and Shadow reveals that a substantial amount of scanning, posting, and commentary ate up hours upon hours of time, and the idea that Plaintiff never would have picked up on that level of activity is beyond belief. (See Exs. 31, 32.)
In that regard, Mrs. Seipler testified inconsistently that, notwithstanding the paramount need for secrecy, she did not “actively” hide her work on the computer from Plaintiff, whom she conceded, could have been home when she was working on the blogs. (Tr. 1586-87, 1606-08, 1786-87.)
More to the point, as further discussed below, Mrs. Seipler testified at the hearing she did not need an email address to create Real MCSO because the computer was already signed into Google Blogspot. (Id. at 1465-67.)
However, as Plaintiff demonstrated while creating a blog in court, when signed into Google, all of the blogs administered using that account are listed on the home screen. (See id. at 1818-21.)
In fact, the names of the three blogs Plaintiff created in court appeared on the screen (see id. at 1819), but he provided no explanation as to how he would nothave seen any indication of Real MCSO every time he accessed his blog, when both were created by a person with the user name “[email protected]” (See Ex. 33 at ¶¶ 20, 27.)
But even aside from the inherent implausibility of their denials, the Seiplers’ effort to distance Plaintiff from any knowledge of Real MCSO was again eviscerated by Mrs. Seipler’s deposition.
She testified during the hearing she did not talk to her husband about reviewing the disciplinary files until the “heated” conversation in August. (Tr. 1565-67.)
However, that testimony was impeached with her contrary deposition testimony that, after reviewing the files, she did, in fact, discuss her review with Plaintiff when she next saw him. (R.S. Dep. at 49-52.)
When confronted with that damning testimony, Mrs. Seipler bizarrely contended that she never “pointed to” the documents. (Tr. 1567, 1572.)
Of course, that explanation had nothing to do with anything she was asked about.[FN14]
= = = = =
FN14 Mrs. Seipler acknowledged she had discussed this deposition testimony in detail with Horwitz before her in-court testimony. (Tr. 1520-22.)
= = = = =
With that critical admission, Plaintiff’s June 21 affidavit flew directly in the face of evidence that
- the documents on Real MCSO were from Plaintiff’s litigation; (
- Plaintiff had been blogging daily about MCSO on his acknowledged blog at the time;
- Mrs. Seipler was active with Plaintiff on his blog and their family blog, which were created and administered from the same computer as Real MCSO and Shadow;
- Mrs. Seipler admitted discussing her review of the files with Plaintiff after she reviewed them;
- the Seiplers argued about Mrs. Seipler posting commentary on websites, including one posting in which Plaintiff told Mrs. Seipler she was going to have people thinking it was Plaintiff who made the post;
- Plaintiff saw that the personnel files the Seiplers had discussed were posted on Real MCSO;
- after seeing the posted documents, they discussed the fact that “someone’s putting this stuff out there;” and
- Plaintiff knew sanctions were being sought from him for posting the documents.
Simply stated, the Seiplers’ stubborn attempt to convince this Court, in the face of such evidence, that they did not discuss whether it was she who posted the documents until August 2011, is an affront and insult to the integrity of this Court and the judicial process.
The evidence establishes plainly that no such discussion occurred because it was Plaintiff who created Real MCSO and posted the documents, and then perjuriously denied it.
= = = = =
Part 12 tomorrow.