Preview
-02-01882
IN THE MATTER OF IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW
THE MARRIAGE OF
LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT
NUMBER THREE
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT
AND IN THE INTEREST OF
GAGE AXEL OEHLERT AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
BECKHAM BRIGGS OEHLERT,
CHILDREN
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY
This Motion to Disqualify Attorney is brought by COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, who
shows in support:
Overview
MATTHEW W. MAHONEY, Texas State Bar Number 24039029, is the attorney of
record for LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT, and that such representation creates a conflict of
interest under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct section
Facts in Support of Disqualification
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT will testify to the facts as contained in his Unsworn
Declar ion attached hereto as EXHIBIT A as grounds for the disqualification of MATTHEW
W. MAHONEY.
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Section 3.08
Rule 3.08 - Lawyer as Witness
A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment as an advocate before a tribunal in
a contemplated or pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the
lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of the lawyer's
client, unless:
the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to
believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony;
the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case;
the lawyer is a party to the action and is appearing pro se; or
the lawyer has promptly notified opposing counsel that the lawyer expects to testify in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24- -01882 CCL3
In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert a Children
Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page of
the matter and disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
(b) A lawyer shall not continue as an advocate in a pending adjudicatory proceeding if
the lawyer believes that the lawyer will be compelled to furnish testimony that will be
substantially adverse to the lawyer's client, unless the client consents after full disclosure.
(c) Without the client's informed consent, a lawyer may not act as advocate in an
adjudicatory proceeding in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is prohibited by paragraphs
(a) or (b) from serving as advocate. If the lawyer to be called as a witness could not also serve as
an advocate under this Rule, that lawyer shall not take an active role before the tribunal in the
presentation of the matter.
Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 3.08
Comment:
1. A lawyer who is considering accepting or continuing employment in a contemplated or
pending adjudicatory proceeding in which that lawyer knows or believes that he or she may be a
necessary witness is obligated by this Rule to consider the possible consequences of those dual
roles for both the lawyer's own client and for opposing parties.
2. One important variable in this context is the anticipated tenor of the lawyer's testimony. If that
testimony will be substantially adverse to the client, paragraphs (b) and (c) provide the
governing standard. In other situations, paragraphs (a) and (c) control.
3. A lawyer who is considering both representing a client in an adjudicatory proceeding and
serving as a witness in that proceeding may possess information pertinent to the representation
that would be substantially adverse to the client were it to be disclosed. A lawyer who believes
that he or she will be compelled to furnish testimony concerning such matters should not
continue to act as an advocate for his or her client except with the client's informed consent,
because of the substantial likelihood that such adverse testimony would damage the lawyer's
ability to represent the client effectively.
4. In all other circumstances, the principal concern over allowing a lawyer to serve as both an
advocate and witness for a client is the possible confusion that those dual roles could create for
the finder of fact. Normally those dual roles are unlikely to create exceptional difficulties when
the lawyer's testimony is limited to the areas set out in sub-paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this Rule. If,
however, the lawyer's testimony concerns a controversial or contested matter, combining the
roles of advocate and witness can unfairly prejudice the opposing party. A witness is required to
testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment
on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness
should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
5. Paragraph (a)(1) recognizes that if the testimony will be uncontested, the ambiguities in the
dual role are purely theoretical. Paragraph (a)(2) recognizes that similar considerations apply if
a lawyer's testimony relates solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3
In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children
Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 2 of 5
substantial opposing evidence will be offered. In each of those situations requiring the
involvement of another lawyer would be a costly procedure that would serve no significant
countervailing purpose.
6. Sub-paragraph (a)(3) recognizes that where the testimony concerns the extent and value of
legal services rendered in the action in which the testimony is offered, permitting the lawyers to
testify avoids the need for a second trial with new counsel to resolve that issue. Moreover, in
such a situation the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue; hence, there is less
dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the testimony. Sub-paragraph
(a)(4) makes it clear that this Rule is not intended to affect a lawyers' right to self-
representation.
7. Apart from these four exceptions, sub-paragraph (a)(5) recognizes an additional exception
based upon a balancing of the interests of the client and those of the opposing party. In
implementing this exception, it is relevant that one or both parties could reasonably foresee that
the lawyer would probably be a witness. For example, sub-paragraph (a)(5) requires that a
lawyer relying on that sub-paragraph as a basis for serving as both an advocate and a witness
for a party give timely notification of that fact to opposing counsel. That requirement serves two
purposes. First, it prevents the testifying lawyer from creating a substantial hardship, where
none once existed, by virtue of a lengthy representation of the client in the matter at hand.
Second, it puts opposing parties on notice of the situation, thus enabling them to make any
desired response at the earliest opportunity.
8. This rule does not prohibit the lawyer who may or will be a witness from participating in the
preparation of a matter for presentation to a tribunal. To minimize the possibility of unfair
prejudice to an opposing party, however, the Rule prohibits any testifying lawyer who could not
serve as an advocate from taking an active role before the tribunal in the presentation of the
matter. See paragraph (c). Even in those situations, however, another lawyer in the testifying
lawyer's firm may act as an advocate, provided the client's informed consent is obtained.
9. Rule 3.08 sets out a disciplinary standard and is not well suited to use as a standard for
procedural disqualification. As a disciplinary rule it serves two principal purposes. The first is to
insure that a client's case is not compromised by being represented by a lawyer who could be a
more effective witness for the client by not also serving as an advocate. See paragraph (a). The
second is to insure that a client is not burdened by counsel who may have to offer testimony that
is substantially adverse to the clients cause. See paragraph (b).
10. This Rule may furnish some guidance in those procedural disqualification disputes where the
party seeking disqualification can demonstrate actual prejudice to itself resulting from the
opposing lawyer's service in the dual roles. However, it should not be used as a tactical weapon
to deprive the opposing party of the right to be represented by the lawyer of his or her choice.
For example, a lawyer should not seek to disqualify an opposing lawyer under this Rule merely
because the opposing lawyer's dual roles may involve an improper conflict of interest with
respect to the opposing lawyer's client, for that is a matter to be resolved between lawyer and
client or in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. Likewise, a lawyer should not seek to
disqualify an opposing lawyer by unnecessarily calling that lawyer as a witness. Such
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3
In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children
Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 3 of 5
unintended applications of this Rule, if allowed, would subvert its true purpose by converting it
into a mere tactical weapon in litigation.
Requested Findings
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT requests the Court to FIND that MATTHEW W.
MAHONEY is disqualified as attorney of record for LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT pursuant to
the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.08 in that MATTHEW W. MAHONEY is a
material witness in this case, and MATTHEW W. MAHONEY’s testimony as a witness may be
necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT or COLBY
WAYNE OEHLERT. The Court FINDS that COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT has not consented
for MATTHEW W. MAHONEY to continue his representation of LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT
in this matter or serve in a dual role of attorney and witness.
Prayer
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT prays that the Court grant the Motion to Disqualify
Attorney and disqualify MATTHEW W. MAHONEY as attorney of record for LAUREN
ARIEL OEHLERT.
Respectfully submitted,
BB Law Group PLLC
8505 Technology Forest Place
Suite 1102
The Woodlands, Texas 77381
Tel: (832) 534-2589
Fax: (844) 534-2585
By:
BRYAN BLEIBDREY
State Bar No. 24064144
service@bbattorney.com
Attorney for COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3
In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children
Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 4 of 5
Notice of Hearing
The above motion is set for hearing on February 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in County Court
at Law Number Three, Montgomery County, Texas.
Certificate of Service
I certify that a true copy of this Motion to Disqualify Attorney was served in accordance
with rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on FEBRUARY 14, 2024:
MATTHEW W. MAHONEY, Petitioner's attorney, by electronic filing manager.
BRYAN J. BLEIBDREY
Attorney for COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3
In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children
Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
NO. 24-02-01882
LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT § IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW
§
AND § NUMBER THREE
§
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
UNSWORN DECLARATION
My name is COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT. I am above the age of eighteen years. I am
fully competent to make this declaration. The facts in this declaration are within my personal
knowledge and are true and correct.
"Matt Mahoney helped Erinn Brown, who was LAUREN'S attorney in a custody case out
of Brazoria County back in 2019-2022. I believe this is when LAUREN met Matt Mahoney.
While this case was ongoing, Matt Mahoney paid for all four of us (me, Lauren, Matt & Erin) to
go to a casino for a weekend.
"While we were at the casino, Matt Mahoney would always hand LAUREN chips when
she ran out so she could keep gambling. At the time I did not think anything of it, but shortly
after this trip Matt Mahoney took over LAUREN'S custody case from Erinn Brown, her original
attorney. LAUREN would go to Matt Mahoney's house after work and not come home until
anywhere from 10:00p.m.-midnight, telling me that she and Matt Mahoney “were working on
her case.” The late nights continued and evolved into them playing poker.
"On October 16, 2021, LAUREN filed for divorce from me using Matt Mahoney as her
attorney. Thereafter, LAUREN and Matt Mahoney started posting pictures on Facebook together
and planned to spend Christmas together with her family and Matt Mahoney's family. I was not
invited and was told I couldn't attend. LAUREN and Matt Mahoney apparently got into an
argument the week before Christmas and LAUREN packed all the presents that Matt Mahoney
bought her, her kids, and Gage (my son together with LAUREN). The presents Matt Mahoney
bought LAUREN include a Louis Vuitton purse, a Louis Vuitton perfume, a crystal heart with a
picture of LAUREN and Matt Mahoney, a red battery-operated truck for Gage, as well as clothes
and other random gifts.
"On November 19, 2021, for LAUREN'S birthday, Matt Mahoney paid for LAUREN and
her family to go to the Golden Nugget in Lake Charles, Louisiana. LAUREN'S father, Ottis
Roe, confirmed this to me. Around this time Matt Mahoney and LAUREN started traveling to
casinos together and also went to Dewberry Farms in Brookshire, Texas. LAUREN and Matt
Mahoney also traveled to Creek Nation Casino Checotah on at least two occasions that I am
aware of, one being on December 4-5, 2022.
"Carter (LAUREN'S son from her previous marriage) mentioned that he and Matt
Mahoney went looking for furniture for his room at Matt Mahoney's house so they could start
living there.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-02236; CCL3
Lauren A. Oehlert vs. Colby W. Oehlert
Unsworn Declaration Page 1 of 2
"In January/February of 2022, LAUREN decided she wanted to non-suit the divorce case
against me. When LAUREN informed Matt Mahoney of her decision to non-suit our divorce, he
told LAUREN “If you go on vacation with me one more time and prove there is nothing there, I
will drop it." LAUREN did in fact go on vacation with Matt Mahoney. When Matt Mahoney
would not file the non-suit after their vacation, LAUREN used Gerald Yoakum to prepare and
file the non-suit.
"I believe that LAUREN sold the Louis Vuitton purse at a resale shop in Alvin, Texas
and used the funds to pay Gerald Yoakum. Despite all of this, LAUREN was still helping plan
the baby shower for Matt Mahoney's son. LAUREN even attended the baby shower and took a
picture with Matt Mahoney with a sign stating “Love.”
Colby W. Oehlert* *bb by permission
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, Declarant
My name is COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, my date of birth is April 1, 1991, and my
current address is 3405 Windcrest Court, Pearland, Texas 77581. I declare under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Montgomery, County, Texas on February 14, 2024.
Colby W. Oehlert* *bb by permission
COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, Declarant
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cause no. 24-02-02236; CCL3
Lauren A. Oehlert vs. Colby W. Oehlert
Unsworn Declaration Page 2 of 2
Preview
-02-01882 IN THE MATTER OF IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW THE MARRIAGE OF LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT NUMBER THREE COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT AND IN THE INTEREST OF GAGE AXEL OEHLERT AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS BECKHAM BRIGGS OEHLERT, CHILDREN MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY This Motion to Disqualify Attorney is brought by COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, who shows in support: Overview MATTHEW W. MAHONEY, Texas State Bar Number 24039029, is the attorney of record for LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT, and that such representation creates a conflict of interest under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct section Facts in Support of Disqualification COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT will testify to the facts as contained in his Unsworn Declar ion attached hereto as EXHIBIT A as grounds for the disqualification of MATTHEW W. MAHONEY. Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Section 3.08 Rule 3.08 - Lawyer as Witness A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment as an advocate before a tribunal in a contemplated or pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of the lawyer's client, unless: the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; the lawyer is a party to the action and is appearing pro se; or the lawyer has promptly notified opposing counsel that the lawyer expects to testify in _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24- -01882 CCL3 In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert a Children Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page of the matter and disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) A lawyer shall not continue as an advocate in a pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer believes that the lawyer will be compelled to furnish testimony that will be substantially adverse to the lawyer's client, unless the client consents after full disclosure. (c) Without the client's informed consent, a lawyer may not act as advocate in an adjudicatory proceeding in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is prohibited by paragraphs (a) or (b) from serving as advocate. If the lawyer to be called as a witness could not also serve as an advocate under this Rule, that lawyer shall not take an active role before the tribunal in the presentation of the matter. Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 3.08 Comment: 1. A lawyer who is considering accepting or continuing employment in a contemplated or pending adjudicatory proceeding in which that lawyer knows or believes that he or she may be a necessary witness is obligated by this Rule to consider the possible consequences of those dual roles for both the lawyer's own client and for opposing parties. 2. One important variable in this context is the anticipated tenor of the lawyer's testimony. If that testimony will be substantially adverse to the client, paragraphs (b) and (c) provide the governing standard. In other situations, paragraphs (a) and (c) control. 3. A lawyer who is considering both representing a client in an adjudicatory proceeding and serving as a witness in that proceeding may possess information pertinent to the representation that would be substantially adverse to the client were it to be disclosed. A lawyer who believes that he or she will be compelled to furnish testimony concerning such matters should not continue to act as an advocate for his or her client except with the client's informed consent, because of the substantial likelihood that such adverse testimony would damage the lawyer's ability to represent the client effectively. 4. In all other circumstances, the principal concern over allowing a lawyer to serve as both an advocate and witness for a client is the possible confusion that those dual roles could create for the finder of fact. Normally those dual roles are unlikely to create exceptional difficulties when the lawyer's testimony is limited to the areas set out in sub-paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this Rule. If, however, the lawyer's testimony concerns a controversial or contested matter, combining the roles of advocate and witness can unfairly prejudice the opposing party. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof. 5. Paragraph (a)(1) recognizes that if the testimony will be uncontested, the ambiguities in the dual role are purely theoretical. Paragraph (a)(2) recognizes that similar considerations apply if a lawyer's testimony relates solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3 In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 2 of 5 substantial opposing evidence will be offered. In each of those situations requiring the involvement of another lawyer would be a costly procedure that would serve no significant countervailing purpose. 6. Sub-paragraph (a)(3) recognizes that where the testimony concerns the extent and value of legal services rendered in the action in which the testimony is offered, permitting the lawyers to testify avoids the need for a second trial with new counsel to resolve that issue. Moreover, in such a situation the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue; hence, there is less dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the testimony. Sub-paragraph (a)(4) makes it clear that this Rule is not intended to affect a lawyers' right to self- representation. 7. Apart from these four exceptions, sub-paragraph (a)(5) recognizes an additional exception based upon a balancing of the interests of the client and those of the opposing party. In implementing this exception, it is relevant that one or both parties could reasonably foresee that the lawyer would probably be a witness. For example, sub-paragraph (a)(5) requires that a lawyer relying on that sub-paragraph as a basis for serving as both an advocate and a witness for a party give timely notification of that fact to opposing counsel. That requirement serves two purposes. First, it prevents the testifying lawyer from creating a substantial hardship, where none once existed, by virtue of a lengthy representation of the client in the matter at hand. Second, it puts opposing parties on notice of the situation, thus enabling them to make any desired response at the earliest opportunity. 8. This rule does not prohibit the lawyer who may or will be a witness from participating in the preparation of a matter for presentation to a tribunal. To minimize the possibility of unfair prejudice to an opposing party, however, the Rule prohibits any testifying lawyer who could not serve as an advocate from taking an active role before the tribunal in the presentation of the matter. See paragraph (c). Even in those situations, however, another lawyer in the testifying lawyer's firm may act as an advocate, provided the client's informed consent is obtained. 9. Rule 3.08 sets out a disciplinary standard and is not well suited to use as a standard for procedural disqualification. As a disciplinary rule it serves two principal purposes. The first is to insure that a client's case is not compromised by being represented by a lawyer who could be a more effective witness for the client by not also serving as an advocate. See paragraph (a). The second is to insure that a client is not burdened by counsel who may have to offer testimony that is substantially adverse to the clients cause. See paragraph (b). 10. This Rule may furnish some guidance in those procedural disqualification disputes where the party seeking disqualification can demonstrate actual prejudice to itself resulting from the opposing lawyer's service in the dual roles. However, it should not be used as a tactical weapon to deprive the opposing party of the right to be represented by the lawyer of his or her choice. For example, a lawyer should not seek to disqualify an opposing lawyer under this Rule merely because the opposing lawyer's dual roles may involve an improper conflict of interest with respect to the opposing lawyer's client, for that is a matter to be resolved between lawyer and client or in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. Likewise, a lawyer should not seek to disqualify an opposing lawyer by unnecessarily calling that lawyer as a witness. Such _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3 In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 3 of 5 unintended applications of this Rule, if allowed, would subvert its true purpose by converting it into a mere tactical weapon in litigation. Requested Findings COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT requests the Court to FIND that MATTHEW W. MAHONEY is disqualified as attorney of record for LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT pursuant to the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.08 in that MATTHEW W. MAHONEY is a material witness in this case, and MATTHEW W. MAHONEY’s testimony as a witness may be necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT or COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT. The Court FINDS that COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT has not consented for MATTHEW W. MAHONEY to continue his representation of LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT in this matter or serve in a dual role of attorney and witness. Prayer COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT prays that the Court grant the Motion to Disqualify Attorney and disqualify MATTHEW W. MAHONEY as attorney of record for LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT. Respectfully submitted, BB Law Group PLLC 8505 Technology Forest Place Suite 1102 The Woodlands, Texas 77381 Tel: (832) 534-2589 Fax: (844) 534-2585 By: BRYAN BLEIBDREY State Bar No. 24064144 service@bbattorney.com Attorney for COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3 In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 4 of 5 Notice of Hearing The above motion is set for hearing on February 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in County Court at Law Number Three, Montgomery County, Texas. Certificate of Service I certify that a true copy of this Motion to Disqualify Attorney was served in accordance with rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on FEBRUARY 14, 2024: MATTHEW W. MAHONEY, Petitioner's attorney, by electronic filing manager. BRYAN J. BLEIBDREY Attorney for COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-01882; CCL3 In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren A. Oehlert and Colby W. Oehlert and Children Motion to Disqualify Attorney Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A NO. 24-02-01882 LAUREN ARIEL OEHLERT § IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW § AND § NUMBER THREE § COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS UNSWORN DECLARATION My name is COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT. I am above the age of eighteen years. I am fully competent to make this declaration. The facts in this declaration are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. "Matt Mahoney helped Erinn Brown, who was LAUREN'S attorney in a custody case out of Brazoria County back in 2019-2022. I believe this is when LAUREN met Matt Mahoney. While this case was ongoing, Matt Mahoney paid for all four of us (me, Lauren, Matt & Erin) to go to a casino for a weekend. "While we were at the casino, Matt Mahoney would always hand LAUREN chips when she ran out so she could keep gambling. At the time I did not think anything of it, but shortly after this trip Matt Mahoney took over LAUREN'S custody case from Erinn Brown, her original attorney. LAUREN would go to Matt Mahoney's house after work and not come home until anywhere from 10:00p.m.-midnight, telling me that she and Matt Mahoney “were working on her case.” The late nights continued and evolved into them playing poker. "On October 16, 2021, LAUREN filed for divorce from me using Matt Mahoney as her attorney. Thereafter, LAUREN and Matt Mahoney started posting pictures on Facebook together and planned to spend Christmas together with her family and Matt Mahoney's family. I was not invited and was told I couldn't attend. LAUREN and Matt Mahoney apparently got into an argument the week before Christmas and LAUREN packed all the presents that Matt Mahoney bought her, her kids, and Gage (my son together with LAUREN). The presents Matt Mahoney bought LAUREN include a Louis Vuitton purse, a Louis Vuitton perfume, a crystal heart with a picture of LAUREN and Matt Mahoney, a red battery-operated truck for Gage, as well as clothes and other random gifts. "On November 19, 2021, for LAUREN'S birthday, Matt Mahoney paid for LAUREN and her family to go to the Golden Nugget in Lake Charles, Louisiana. LAUREN'S father, Ottis Roe, confirmed this to me. Around this time Matt Mahoney and LAUREN started traveling to casinos together and also went to Dewberry Farms in Brookshire, Texas. LAUREN and Matt Mahoney also traveled to Creek Nation Casino Checotah on at least two occasions that I am aware of, one being on December 4-5, 2022. "Carter (LAUREN'S son from her previous marriage) mentioned that he and Matt Mahoney went looking for furniture for his room at Matt Mahoney's house so they could start living there. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-02236; CCL3 Lauren A. Oehlert vs. Colby W. Oehlert Unsworn Declaration Page 1 of 2 "In January/February of 2022, LAUREN decided she wanted to non-suit the divorce case against me. When LAUREN informed Matt Mahoney of her decision to non-suit our divorce, he told LAUREN “If you go on vacation with me one more time and prove there is nothing there, I will drop it." LAUREN did in fact go on vacation with Matt Mahoney. When Matt Mahoney would not file the non-suit after their vacation, LAUREN used Gerald Yoakum to prepare and file the non-suit. "I believe that LAUREN sold the Louis Vuitton purse at a resale shop in Alvin, Texas and used the funds to pay Gerald Yoakum. Despite all of this, LAUREN was still helping plan the baby shower for Matt Mahoney's son. LAUREN even attended the baby shower and took a picture with Matt Mahoney with a sign stating “Love.” Colby W. Oehlert* *bb by permission COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, Declarant My name is COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, my date of birth is April 1, 1991, and my current address is 3405 Windcrest Court, Pearland, Texas 77581. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Montgomery, County, Texas on February 14, 2024. Colby W. Oehlert* *bb by permission COLBY WAYNE OEHLERT, Declarant _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cause no. 24-02-02236; CCL3 Lauren A. Oehlert vs. Colby W. Oehlert Unsworn Declaration Page 2 of 2