The Trinity Testimony Disconnect

---

What the Leasing Manager’s Testimony Revealed About Laramie’s Rental System

Albany County District Court • Case No. 2024-CV-0036328

Presented as a Laramie Housing Expert — Testimony Reveals Major Gaps

Overview

During the trial, Trinity Thatcher — a leasing manager, real-estate professional, community member, and the wife of Trevor Thatcher connected to Laramie Plains Properties — testified on behalf of the defendants.

Although she had no firsthand knowledge of what happened during the March 21st incident, she answered questions about the lease, the maintenance process, and the general practices of LPP and other landlords in Laramie.

Her testimony revealed major gaps in understanding, non-negotiable policies, rigid tenant expectations, and systemic rental norms that leave tenants without meaningful privacy protections.

This page summarizes my recollection of her testimony, alongside what the Court’s ruling confirms and what her statements imply about the rental landscape in Laramie.

1. Limited Knowledge of the Lease and Its Practical Impact

Throughout her testimony, Trinity struggled to explain key lease provisions. She could not clearly articulate:

• how the maintenance portal’s forced-consent checkbox worked
• what tenants were expected to do if they wanted repairs without automatic entry
• how notice was determined
• what rights tenants had to decline entry
• how long workers could stay after entering
• any scenario in which tenants could override lease language to protect privacy

These gaps are especially concerning because she is involved in enforcing lease terms.

2. She Would Not Say Whether She Would Personally Sign the Lease

When asked whether she would sign the LPP lease herself — with:

• no notice requirements
• no scheduling commitments
• no privacy safeguards
• forced consent for repairs

— Trinity avoided directly answering.

This raises an important question:

If the leasing manager cannot comfortably state she’d sign the lease herself, why are tenants expected to accept it without choice?

3. The Lease Is 100% Non-Negotiable

Trinity confirmed that:

• LPP does not negotiate lease terms
• No tenant has ever been permitted to alter any clause
• The lease must be accepted “as-is”
• This applies even to clauses regarding entry, privacy, scheduling, or boundaries

This highlights the imbalance between landlords and tenants in Laramie:

There is no bargaining power at all.

4. “If You Sign It, You Have to Do What It Says”

Trinity testified that she believes:

If someone signs something, they should have to do what it says.

This view disregards:

• power imbalances in housing
• forced-consent digital mechanisms
• boilerplate terms renters cannot negotiate
• modern consumer-protection standards
• basic privacy expectations in one’s own home

This is not just a personal opinion — it reflects how leases are enforced at LPP.

5. These Lease Practices Are “The Norm” in Laramie

Trinity stated that:

• LPP uses this same lease for their other properties
• Other landlords in Laramie use similar leases
• These terms — including no-notice entry — are “standard practice”

This confirms the broader issue:

Laramie’s rental market normalizes practices that severely reduce tenant privacy and autonomy.

It is not just one landlord.

It is the system.

6. She Had No Direct Knowledge of What Happened

Because Trinity was not present:

• she could not confirm what the workers saw
• she could not confirm what was said at the door
• she could not confirm whether I said I was “not decent”
• she could not confirm how long they stayed
• she could not confirm whether they ignored my request to leave
• she could not verify the timeline at all

Her testimony offered no firsthand facts about the incident — yet she was still presented as a significant witness.

The judge’s final ruling did not cite her testimony even once.

7. She Presented Herself as a Laramie Housing “Expert”

Trinity described her:

• real estate experience
• familiarity with Laramie’s rental market
• involvement in the community
• understanding of local norms
• long-term exposure to leasing practices in town

This means her statements should reflect institutional knowledge — not uncertainty.

Yet much of her testimony relied on:

• “I think…”
• “I believe…”
• “My understanding is…”
• “I assume…”

This contrast matters.

She presented expertise, but her answers showed unclear knowledge of the lease she helps enforce daily.

8. Enforcing Policies She Could Only “Assume,” “Think,” or “Believe”

Despite enforcing these leases as part of her job, Trinity repeatedly framed her knowledge as speculation:

• “I think this is how the portal works…”
• “I believe the lease is clear…”
• “My understanding is tenant can’t uncheck it…”
• “I assume this is how entry works…”

This is especially concerning because:

✔ She helps enforce the lease against tenants

✔ She oversees tenant compliance

✔ She participates in applying policy

✔ Tenants rely on her explanations for their rights

But much of her testimony was based on assumptions — not clear understanding.

This exposes a systemic issue:

Those enforcing the rules may not fully understand them — but tenants are still bound by them with no negotiation or recourse.

9. Unable to Identify Any Tenant Rights Outside the Lease

One of the most revealing moments came when Trinity was asked a straightforward question:

“What rights do tenants have by law outside of the lease?”

According to my recollection, she could not identify any.

Not a single statutory protection.

Not a single privacy right.

Not a single requirement landlords must follow beyond the lease terms.

Instead, she repeated variations of:

• “I’m not sure.”
• “I don’t know that.”
• “My understanding is whatever is in the lease.”

This is deeply significant because tenants do have rights under Wyoming law, even if limited — such as:

• the right not to be abused or harassed
• the right to “not unreasonably deny entry” (which implies some degree of privacy)
• the right to habitable premises
• basic protections under general tort law

If the leasing manager — who enforces lease violations and interacts with tenants daily — cannot articulate what rights exist beyond the lease, then:

✔ tenants are not being informed of their rights

✔ rights may not be respected in practice

✔ the balance of power is entirely one-sided

✔ landlords may be operating under the belief that the lease replaces the law

This moment underscored the core issue:

In Laramie, tenants’ legal rights appear secondary to lease language — even among those charged with enforcing that language.

10. “We Love Our Tenants” — A Feel-Good Narrative That Doesn’t Address Privacy

Throughout her testimony, Trinity repeatedly emphasized how much LPP “loves their tenants,” how they “want everyone to be happy,” and how quickly maintenance responds as a positive community benefit.

The defense attorney reinforced this theme by highlighting:

• raffles,
• giveaways,
• once-or-twice-a-year BBQ cookouts 

as examples of LPP’s “community-first” approach.

But none of this addresses what happened on March 21st.

Friendly gestures do not override:

• the right to privacy
• the right not to be entered upon while naked
• the right to safety in one’s own home
• the right to meaningful consent
• the right not to be ignored after saying “I’m not decent”

And they certainly do not erase the emotional impact of two men refusing to leave while I lay naked under a blanket.

Community events are not a substitute for rights.

Events like raffles and BBQs may sound positive, but they are basic marketing techniques used by countless apartment complexes nationwide. They do not:

• provide legal protections
• balance power
• grant privacy
• justify failure of notice
• excuse misconduct
• negate harm

If anything, the reliance on these events in testimony revealed how out of touch the defense may be with standard renter expectations outside Wyoming.

Two possibilities emerged from this narrative:

A.) A limited view of what modern property management looks like.

Their description of raffles and BBQs as exceptional suggests unfamiliarity with how common these “perks” are in rental markets nationwide, especially in luxury or large complexes.

B.)  A belief that goodwill gestures compensate for serious violations.

The implication seemed to be that community events and friendly intentions should overshadow the experience of being entered upon while naked — or the possibility of implicit bias shaping how tenants are treated.

Neither possibility aligns with tenants’ actual rights or expectations.

Friendly gestures cannot substitute for safety, consent, or dignity in one’s home.

11. Why This Matters

Trinity’s testimony revealed serious problems in Laramie’s rental ecosystem:

• Lease terms are rigid and non-negotiable
• Consent is forced through digital systems
• Those enforcing the lease may not understand or defend it
• Entry privileges are broad, undefined, and unrestricted
• Market norms favor landlords over tenant privacy
• Even “experts” cannot justify the system
• Tenants have no meaningful way to protect themselves

This aligns with the judge’s ruling, which treated the lease as granting unconditional entry “at any time,” further confirming that tenants in Laramie have virtually no privacy rights.

This is exactly why Wyoming needs tenant privacy reform.

Page Note

This page reflects:

• my recollection of Trinity’s sworn testimony,
• her documented statements and filings, and
• what the Court’s final ruling confirms about the relevance and impact of her testimony.

A transcript-based update will be added once the full record is available.