“We planed a trip together to Cancun, one in late Oct 2020 and one in
early Nov 2020” ~Katherine Lense testimony
FA Blockhus and FA Lense jointly planned and scheduled two trips to Cancun, Mexico—
15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE ALLAGED "HARRASSMENT" TOOK PLACE
The first trip originally set for October 26, 2020, which was ultimately canceled due to a hurricane, (The tropical storm emerged into the Southern Gulf of America on Tuesday, October 27th. Zeta turned northwest and became a hurricane on Wednesday October 28th. An approaching upper level low and associated cold front was moving across the Southern Plains while ridging was positioned off the Southeast Atlantic Coastline.) and a second rescheduled for November 9, 2020. These trips occurred during the exact time period in which FA Lense now alleges she received harassing text messages from FA Blockhus. Her willingness to plan and engage in international travel with him during the same timeframe she later claimed to feel threatened or harassed is wholly inconsistent with her narrative.This contradiction significantly undermines the credibility of her allegations and raises serious doubts about the truthfulness of her claims. Notably, FA Lense confirmed the planning of these trips during her sworn testimony, further supporting the conclusion that her allegations are not consistent with her actions during that time.
Below is documentation and recorded phone conversations from a car dash camera confirming the romantic trips planned by FA Lense and FA Blockhus—one in October 2020 and a second in November 2020. This serves as further evidence that FA Lense and FA Blockhus maintained a close and intimate relationship throughout October, November, and well into December 2020, with no indication of conflict or concern. Once again, this continued relationship is corroborated by FA Lense’s own sworn testimony, further undermining the credibility of her later claims and reinforcing that the allegations are inconsistent with her actions and communications during that time.
In the recorded phone conversations between FA Blockhus and FA Lense, FA Lense is clearly heard expressing enthusiasm and eagerness about their planned trip to Cancun at the end of October 2020, as well as a rescheduled trip in November 2020. FA Blockhus has also submitted corroborating witness statements confirming these plans.These recorded conversations directly contradict FA Lense’s deposition testimony, in which she claimed that she canceled the trips and did not want to go. In reality, it was FA Blockhus who chose to cancel the second trip. During the call, FA Lense is heard reacting emotionally to this decision, lashing out and stating, "You can't do this to me"—a clear indication that she not only agreed to the trip but was upset about its cancellation. Additionally, FA Lense falsely testified under oath that there was only one trip planned to Cancun. However, she is plainly heard in these recordings discussing the second planned trip for November 2020. This contradiction is not a matter of interpretation—it is recorded, verifiable evidence that calls into question FA Lense’s credibility and the truthfulness of her sworn testimony. Such inconsistencies should be subject to close scrutiny by the court or any investigative body assessing the merits of this case.
The dashboard camera installed in the vehicle of FA Blockhus was equipped to record video as well as audio sound with in the car while on speaker phone . As a result, any phone conversations conducted through the vehicle’s Bluetooth or integrated hands-free connection were captured directly by the dashboard camera’s audio recording function. This recording system preserved the conversations as they occurred in real time, without alteration, providing an accurate and contemporaneous record of statements made during those calls. The audio was not recreated after the fact but instead originated from the vehicle’s speakerphone system while the calls were actively taking place.
Statement Regarding Timeline Inconsistencies and Recorded Speaker Conversation Captured by FA Blockhus’s Vehicle Dash Camera
The following recorded conversations provide direct evidence that contradicts her testimony and cast substantial doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the allegations made against FA Blockhus.
October 26, 2020 pt.1
On the morning of October 26, 2020—the very timeframe
during which FA Lense claims to have been harassed and
threatened by FA Blockhus—FA Blockhus informed FA Lense
that their first trip to Cancun was canceled hurricane Zeta.
This communication directly contradicts FA Lense’s sworn
testimony, in which she claimed that she had canceled the trip.
The timing of this exchange is critical, as it not only disproves
her claim of initiating the cancellation, but also further
undermines her broader narrative of fear and harassment
during that period. Once again, the facts do not align with her
testimony, and her credibility should be carefully scrutinized.
October 26, 2020 pt.2
In a recorded conversation following the cancellation of their
original trip, FA Blockhus and FA Lense are heard discussing
the possibility of rebooking their travel plans. FA Blockhus
expresses uncertainty about whether rebooking would be
feasible, while FA Lense is clearly heard instructing him that it
would be possible and urging him to proceed with the arrangements. This exchange directly contradicts FA Lense’s
sworn testimony, in which she claimed that she canceled the
trip and did not want to go. The recording provides clear,
objective evidence that FA Lense was not only willing but
actively participating in planning the rescheduled trip, further
casting doubt on the credibility of her testimony.
November 9, 2020 pt. 1
FA Blockhus and FA Lense rebooked a second trip to Cancun
for November 9, 2020, following the cancellation of their original trip due to a hurricane Zeta. However, as the date
approached, FA Blockhus began to have serious reservations
about continuing their relationship and expressed second
thoughts about traveling with FA Lense. In a recorded conversation, FA Blockhus is heard voicing these concerns, while FA Lense is heard encouraging him to proceed with the trip, stating,
“All I want to do is drink margaritas and eat good
food.”~Katherine Lense
Additionally, during this conversation, FA Lense is heard
discussing booking her flight to Cancun, clearly confirming
her intention and enthusiasm for the trip. This evidence once
again contradicts her sworn testimony in which she claimed
she had canceled the trip and had no interest in going, further
calling into question her credibility and the reliability of her
claims.
November 9, 2020 pt. 2
In this recorded conversation regarding the second planned trip to Cancun (the first having been canceled due to a hurricane), FA Blockhus is clearly the one who initiated the cancellation. During the call, FA Lense is heard reacting emotionally and lashing out at FA Blockhus for his desire to cancel, even exclaiming, “You can’t do this to me.” This interaction strongly contradicts FA Lense’s sworn testimony in which she claimed she had canceled the trip and did not wish to go.
In addition to the audio evidence, supporting text messages confirming these events were submitted into the record. Despite their relevance, this evidence
was disregarded by United, further demonstrating a troubling pattern of selective consideration and undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
Cancun October 26, 2020 and November 9, 2020 Bookings
AFTER THE DATE Lense claimed to be a victim of "harassment" of FA Blockhus
The documentation below reflects trips planned by FA Lense with FA Blockhus in late October and a second in early November 2020. These materials provide additional evidence that the parties maintained a close and ongoing personal relationship during that period, extending through October and continuing into November and December 2020.
This evidence is significant because it directly relates to the timeline and nature of the relationship as later described by FA Lense. The existence of planned travel and continued interaction during this timeframe is inconsistent with assertions suggesting that the relationship had fully deteriorated or ceased prior to these events.
The records further support the position that communication and contact between the parties remained active and voluntary during the relevant period. As such, these materials provide important context for evaluating the credibility and accuracy of later allegations.
When considered alongside other evidence, including communication records and continued contact, this documentation contributes to a more complete understanding of the relationship timeline and raises questions regarding the consistency of FA Lense’s later characterizations of events.
