Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case of Ronn Owens and Jan Black/Elizabeth Naylor, docketed 6/17/26. Judge Madeleine C. Wanslee has granted the Debtors' Motion to Appear via VideoConference tomorrow, 6/18/26 at 10:30 am MST. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #Bankruptcy Thank you to @atb_research for redacting!

Court Documents for J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Ronn Owens, filed 6/12/26. Notice of Dismissal with without Prejudice, docketed 6/17/26. Once the automatic stay expires for their Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, all creditors, including Chase, can resume collection. #CourtDocs #DocketUpdate Thank you to the JFC community member who obtained these! 🫶🏻

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case of Ronn Owens and Jan Black, docketed 6/15/26. The Expedited Hearing on Debtors’ Emergency Motion to Extend Automatic Stay was rescheduled for 10:30 am MST on 6/18/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case of Ronn Owens and Jan Black/Elizabeth Naylor. Judge Madeleine Wanslee has granted the motion for an expedited hearing on the stay motion, set for 6/18/26 at 2:30 pm MST. It is unclear if this was set before the Judge considered DOJ attorney Jennifer Giaimo’s filing docketed yesterday. An objection to the stay motion is due by 6/15/26 - which Giaimo filed yesterday. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of Ronn Owens and Jan Black/Elizabeth Naylor. United States Trustee's Objection to Emergency Motion to Extend Automatic Stay, filed by Jennifer Giaimo on 6/11/26. We will share the document after it is redacted and uploaded to the JFC wiki or VOLO. Essentially, the U.S. Trustee opposes Jan Black and Ronn Owens’ request to extend the automatic bankruptcy stay, arguing that their new Chapter 11 filing was made in bad faith because it closely followed a dismissed Chapter 13 case, contains numerous alleged inconsistencies and omissions, and appears primarily intended to stop an imminent foreclosure. Attorney Jennifer Giaimo contends the debtors have not shown any meaningful change in circumstances or a realistic ability to successfully reorganize, and therefore, the stay should be allowed to expire. 🔥 The two other Proposed Orders were a resubmission from debtors Ronn and Jan. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #Bankruptcy

Minute Entry (ME) - Comprehensive Case Management Conference for the State of Arizona v. #LauraMichelleOwens, filed 5/22/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #LauraMichelleOwensCriminalTrial

NAK Nation — Thursday Analysis Post 🏔️ Breaking — Judge Gleason Issues Order On Four Pending Motions On May 19, 2026, Judge Sharon Gleason filed Document 252 in the Pebble Mine case. A five-page order resolving four pending motions. 37 days before oral argument. Here is what happened and why it matters. Four Motions. Three PLP Wins. One Neutral. Motion One. PLP's request to file its Second Corrected Opening Brief. Granted without opposition. PLP's primary briefing is now in its final accepted form before the court. Motion Two. PLP's Motion to Lift EPA's Protective Order Designations on certain documents in the administrative record. Granted in full. Motion Three. PLP's Motion to File an Overlength Reply Brief. Granted. Motion Four. PLP's Motion to Seal Portions of the Joint Appendix. Denied as moot based on the ruling in Motion Two. Three rulings directly favor PLP. One is neutral procedural housekeeping. EPA's position was rejected on both contested motions. Motion Two — The Most Significant Ruling The documents at issue were scholarly journal articles already publicly available and State of Alaska agency documents. EPA opposed PLP's motion and proposed a compromise that would allow only the first page and cited pages of each document into the public record. Judge Gleason rejected EPA's proposed compromise explicitly. Her exact language. The Court finds that this proposed restriction is unreasonable given that the public could otherwise access the entirety of these documents and the import of the cited material could be lost if only the cited page itself and not the surrounding pages was available to the public. She granted PLP's motion with respect to the entirety of the articles and other materials referenced by any party in their briefing. EPA lost this motion entirely. Its proposed compromise was specifically called unreasonable by the judge. There is one additional finding in this ruling worth noting carefully. Judge Gleason documented that EPA failed to file the confidentiality designated materials with the Court when it filed the administrative record in this case. PLP had to file those missing materials itself. EPA failed to properly include materials in its own administrative record filing. PLP corrected EPA's failure. Judge Gleason noted it in her order. That is a small but precise example of exactly the kind of administrative and procedural inadequacy the plaintiffs have been documenting throughout their briefs. Motion Three — The Word That Matters Judge Gleason granted PLP's request to file a 77-page overlength reply brief. She had previously noted in an earlier order that more concise briefing is often more persuasive. Despite that prior observation she granted the overlength request. Her stated reasoning is worth reading carefully. The Court was persuaded by PLP's reply memorandum and in particular the fact that PLP is responding not only to EPA's brief but also to the three intervenor groups' briefs. She was persuaded. That is her word. Not simply granted. Not found acceptable. Persuaded. A federal judge 35 days before oral argument chose the word persuaded to describe her reaction to PLP's briefing argument. She also explicitly acknowledged the structural asymmetry PLP faces. One plaintiff responding simultaneously to EPA plus three separate intervenor groups. She recognized that asymmetry and granted PLP the pages needed to address it fully. Why This Order Matters Beyond The Headlines I want to explain something that is easy to miss if you are only reading the surface of this order. PLP is not making one argument before Judge Gleason. They are making five independent arguments each grounded in EPA's own documents. And the real power of their case is not any single argument. It is the combination of all five pointing at the same agency action from five different directions simultaneously. Think of it like building a legal case the way a prosecutor builds a criminal case. One piece of circumstantial evidence is debatable. Five independent pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction start to form a pattern that is very difficult to explain away. That is how PLP has constructed this case. Not one silver bullet. Five converging vulnerabilities in the same agency action. EPA's strongest strategic response to that kind of case is to argue each argument in isolation. Take them one at a time. Make each one look like a small debatable issue that can be fixed on remand. Keep them separated so the pattern never becomes visible. What Judge Gleason did today makes that strategy harder for EPA. By rejecting EPA's attempt to limit the record to isolated excerpts she is allowing the full context of each document to be visible. By granting PLP the pages needed to respond to EPA and three intervenor groups simultaneously she is allowing PLP to connect the dots between all five arguments rather than being forced to compress and fragment them. By expanding public access to the complete record she is allowing the full picture of EPA's analytical gaps to be seen rather than a carefully curated selection of pages. In plain language she is allowing PLP to present the complete case. Not pieces of it. All of it. Together. In context. That is the procedural environment where layered multi-argument cases are most powerful. And it is the procedural environment Judge Gleason created today. What This Order Does Not Mean I want to be direct about this because it matters. This order does not decide the merits. It does not tell us how Judge Gleason will rule on June 25 or in her written opinion afterward. It does not mean the veto is going to be vacated. It does not mean PLP wins. Federal judges regularly grant procedural latitude in major complex cases. Gleason is known for thoroughness. These rulings are consistent with how she manages difficult APA litigation generally. What this order tells us is that the judge is engaged with this case at a granular level. She is reading PLP's arguments carefully. She found PLP's reasoning persuasive on a contested procedural question. She rejected EPA's proposed restrictions as unreasonable. She documented EPA's administrative record filing failure. And she is creating the procedural environment in which PLP's strongest litigation posture can be fully presented. That is not nothing. It is just not a merits ruling. The Bottom Line 35 days out. The record is complete. The briefs are filed. The motions are resolved. And the judge managing this case just rejected EPA's attempts to limit the record, granted PLP the space to present its complete case, used the word persuaded to describe her reaction to PLP's briefing, and documented EPA's failure to properly file its own administrative record materials. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #NorthernDynasty #PLP #EPA #CriticalMinerals #AlaskaComeback #CleanWaterAct #APA #Document252 #DocketUpdate #PermittingReform #Alaska #ThreeStreams #LoperBright #Sackett #Vacatur

NAK Nation — Thursday Analysis Post 🏔️ Breaking — Judge Gleason Issues Order On Four Pending Motions On May 19, 2026, Judge Sharon Gleason filed Document 252 in the Pebble Mine case. A five-page order resolving four pending motions. 37 days before oral argument. Here is what happened and why it matters. Four Motions. Three PLP Wins. One Neutral. Motion One. PLP's request to file its Second Corrected Opening Brief. Granted without opposition. PLP's primary briefing is now in its final accepted form before the court. Motion Two. PLP's Motion to Lift EPA's Protective Order Designations on certain documents in the administrative record. Granted in full. Motion Three. PLP's Motion to File an Overlength Reply Brief. Granted. Motion Four. PLP's Motion to Seal Portions of the Joint Appendix. Denied as moot based on the ruling in Motion Two. Three rulings directly favor PLP. One is neutral procedural housekeeping. EPA's position was rejected on both contested motions. Motion Two — The Most Significant Ruling The documents at issue were scholarly journal articles already publicly available and State of Alaska agency documents. EPA opposed PLP's motion and proposed a compromise that would allow only the first page and cited pages of each document into the public record. Judge Gleason rejected EPA's proposed compromise explicitly. Her exact language. The Court finds that this proposed restriction is unreasonable given that the public could otherwise access the entirety of these documents and the import of the cited material could be lost if only the cited page itself and not the surrounding pages was available to the public. She granted PLP's motion with respect to the entirety of the articles and other materials referenced by any party in their briefing. EPA lost this motion entirely. Its proposed compromise was specifically called unreasonable by the judge. There is one additional finding in this ruling worth noting carefully. Judge Gleason documented that EPA failed to file the confidentiality designated materials with the Court when it filed the administrative record in this case. PLP had to file those missing materials itself. EPA failed to properly include materials in its own administrative record filing. PLP corrected EPA's failure. Judge Gleason noted it in her order. That is a small but precise example of exactly the kind of administrative and procedural inadequacy the plaintiffs have been documenting throughout their briefs. Motion Three — The Word That Matters Judge Gleason granted PLP's request to file a 77-page overlength reply brief. She had previously noted in an earlier order that more concise briefing is often more persuasive. Despite that prior observation she granted the overlength request. Her stated reasoning is worth reading carefully. The Court was persuaded by PLP's reply memorandum and in particular the fact that PLP is responding not only to EPA's brief but also to the three intervenor groups' briefs. She was persuaded. That is her word. Not simply granted. Not found acceptable. Persuaded. A federal judge 35 days before oral argument chose the word persuaded to describe her reaction to PLP's briefing argument. She also explicitly acknowledged the structural asymmetry PLP faces. One plaintiff responding simultaneously to EPA plus three separate intervenor groups. She recognized that asymmetry and granted PLP the pages needed to address it fully. Why This Order Matters Beyond The Headlines I want to explain something that is easy to miss if you are only reading the surface of this order. PLP is not making one argument before Judge Gleason. They are making five independent arguments each grounded in EPA's own documents. And the real power of their case is not any single argument. It is the combination of all five pointing at the same agency action from five different directions simultaneously. Think of it like building a legal case the way a prosecutor builds a criminal case. One piece of circumstantial evidence is debatable. Five independent pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction start to form a pattern that is very difficult to explain away. That is how PLP has constructed this case. Not one silver bullet. Five converging vulnerabilities in the same agency action. EPA's strongest strategic response to that kind of case is to argue each argument in isolation. Take them one at a time. Make each one look like a small debatable issue that can be fixed on remand. Keep them separated so the pattern never becomes visible. What Judge Gleason did today makes that strategy harder for EPA. By rejecting EPA's attempt to limit the record to isolated excerpts she is allowing the full context of each document to be visible. By granting PLP the pages needed to respond to EPA and three intervenor groups simultaneously she is allowing PLP to connect the dots between all five arguments rather than being forced to compress and fragment them. By expanding public access to the complete record she is allowing the full picture of EPA's analytical gaps to be seen rather than a carefully curated selection of pages. In plain language she is allowing PLP to present the complete case. Not pieces of it. All of it. Together. In context. That is the procedural environment where layered multi-argument cases are most powerful. And it is the procedural environment Judge Gleason created today. What This Order Does Not Mean I want to be direct about this because it matters. This order does not decide the merits. It does not tell us how Judge Gleason will rule on June 25 or in her written opinion afterward. It does not mean the veto is going to be vacated. It does not mean PLP wins. Federal judges regularly grant procedural latitude in major complex cases. Gleason is known for thoroughness. These rulings are consistent with how she manages difficult APA litigation generally. What this order tells us is that the judge is engaged with this case at a granular level. She is reading PLP's arguments carefully. She found PLP's reasoning persuasive on a contested procedural question. She rejected EPA's proposed restrictions as unreasonable. She documented EPA's administrative record filing failure. And she is creating the procedural environment in which PLP's strongest litigation posture can be fully presented. That is not nothing. It is just not a merits ruling. The Bottom Line 35 days out. The record is complete. The briefs are filed. The motions are resolved. And the judge managing this case just rejected EPA's attempts to limit the record, granted PLP the space to present its complete case, used the word persuaded to describe her reaction to PLP's briefing, and documented EPA's failure to properly file its own administrative record materials. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #NorthernDynasty #PLP #EPA #CriticalMinerals #AlaskaComeback #CleanWaterAct #APA #Document252 #DocketUpdate #PermittingReform #Alaska #ThreeStreams #LoperBright #Sackett #Vacatur

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case of #LauraMichelleOwens. Notice of Lodging Proposed Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed by Trustee Irene Lashinsky and DOJ attorney Jennifer Giaimo on 5/11/26. The proposed order is being lodged in advance of the hearing scheduled for 5/14/26 at 2:15 pm MST. Link to JFC Wiki: justiceforclayton.com/wiki/i… #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs 1/2

Docket Update for the DVRO case of #LauraMichelleOwens v. Mike Marraccini. Laura's request for an extension of time was granted, docketed 4/23/26. Her opening brief is due by 6/29/26. #DocketUpdate #JusticeForMikeMarraccini

Docket Update for the DVRO appeal of #LauraMichelleOwens v. Mike Marraccini. Laura has filed a request for an extension of time, requesting 62 more days. Mind you, this liar & scammer filed her notice of appeal back on 12/4/2025. Absolutely pathetic. Mike wants nothing to do with this woman, yet she continues to try to weaponize the legal system against him. Hey, Laura - he's just not that into you. Get a LIFE! #DocketUpdate #ConArtist #BunnyBoiler #Liar #PregnancyHOAX #JusticeForMikeMarraccini

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy of #LauraMichelleOwens. Proof of Service, filed and docketed 4/20/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #Bankruptcy

Amended Notice of Hearing on Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed and docketed 4/20/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs

Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy of #LauraMichelleOwens. Notice of Hearing on Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed and docketed 4/20/26 by the U.S. Trustee. There will be a hearing on 5/14/26 at 2:15 pm MST on the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs

Docket Update for the State of Arizona v. #LauraMichelleOwens. A Minute Entry for a Pretrial Conference has been filed 4/17/26 and docketed 4/17/26. We will share documents when we have them. #DocketUpdate #CriminalTrial #PregnancyHOAX #JusticeForAllVictimsOfLauraMichelleOwens

🚨BREAKING NEWS🚨 Docket Update and Court Documents for the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case of #LauraMichelleOwens. The United States Trustee's Office has filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed and docked 4/15/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs 1/2

Docket Update and Court Documents for the State of Arizona v. #LauraMichelleOwens. Complex Case Joint Case Management Report, docketed 4/9/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #JusticeForAllVictimsOfLauraMichelleOwens

It appears there has been a lot of activity on the docket for @DavidSGingras' DUI case. Once again, motions have been filed to continue the scheduled hearings and the jury trial date. An evidentiary hearing is set for May 14, 2026, and a jury trial is scheduled for June 22, 2026. Reminder - David Gingras was arrested for drunk driving in July of 2025. He and his lawyers have been postponing this case for close to a year, while he continues to drive! #DisbarDavidGingras #DocketUpdate #GoToRehab

There are some docket updates for the DUI trial of @DavidSGingras. A Motion to Dismiss was filed on 4/3/26. A Minute Order was granted, and an Evidentiary Hearing was also set that same day. The Evidentiary Hearing is now scheduled for 4/20/26 at 3:00 pm MST. We will know more details once we see these court filings, but it is suspected this is simply another delay tactic by DUIL, Esquire, since the last thing David wants to do is go into his Bar proceedings with another DUI conviction/suspension on his record. Reminder - this is his second DUI arrest. Speaking of which, here you go David: aa.org/find-aa #DocketUpdate #DisbarDavidGingras #GoToRehab

Docket Update and Court Documents for the State of Arizona v. #LauraMichelleOwens. Minute Entry (ME) granting Defendant's Motion to Extend Time for Filing Motion for Re-determination of Probable Cause, docketed 4/3/26. #DocketUpdate #CourtDocs #JusticeForAllVictimsOfLauraMichelleOwens Link to VOLO: victimsoflauraowens.com/wp-c…