9 years after her fake abduction, Sherri Papini is still making news
Sherri Papini is still making national news nine years after she claimed she was abducted from Shasta County.
In June, Papini appeared in court to fight eviction from a Shingletown home owned by her former boyfriend. It's the latest in a series of events that include a criminal case, civil court battles and vitriolic online community discussion that began in 2016, when Papini was reported missing.
Here's a look back in video at Papini's highly publicized disappearance, and a roller coaster of events leading up to her return to court in spring.
On Nov. 2, 2016, Papini — then 34 — failed to return from a jog near her north Redding home.
Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Redding Record Searchlight, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know.
A 22-day search for the missing wife and mother of two ensued, during which Shasta County Secret Witness offered a $10,000 reward, and Papini's family offered another $40,000, for information leading to her return.
Her disappearance prompted her family to reach out to law enforcement and local news sources for help finding her. Her then-husband, Keith Papini, issued pleas to kidnappers to return his wife on television and in the Record Searchlight. North State community members supported a BringSherriHome campaign for the Central Valley High School alumna.
Her mysterious disappearance captured national and international media attention, as did Sherri Papini's reappearance three weeks later.
Papini was found on the side of Interstate 5 in Yolo County in the early morning on Thanksgiving Day, 2016. She was bound with restraints, trying to flag down a vehicle for help, according to the Shasta County Sheriff's Office.
News she'd been found spread two hours after family, friends and supporters gathered at Diestelhorst Landing in Redding to release balloons in an effort to raise awareness about her disappearance.
At that time, Papini told officers she was kidnapped, held against her will and physically abused by two Hispanic women.
However, contradicting genetic evidence, weaknesses and inconsistencies in her story and refusal to answer some questions from investigators cast doubt Papini was telling the truth. Skepticism and trust split the community, then went viral as news outlets as far as Europe reported she'd been found.
The case was still open but cold. Lead investigator Sgt. Brian Jackson said in 2018 that 'Something is going to reveal itself someday.' That day came in 2022.
The FBI and Shasta County Sheriff's Office announced they'd formally accused Papini of making up the entire story, and arrested her on March 4. Prosecutors said she misled investigators, wasted law enforcement resources and profited from about $30,000 of payments from the California Victim's Compensation Board.
Steadfast in their support, Papini's family issued a public statement after her arrest that said, "We love Sherri and are appalled by the way in which law enforcement ambushed her this afternoon in a dramatic and unnecessary manner in front of her children."
But in April, 2022, Sherri Papini admitted she was with a former boyfriend at his home in Costa Mesa during the time she was missing. She officially pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to the FBI and defrauding federal, state and local officials out of more than $150,000.
Papini was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to repay some $309,902 for losses incurred by the California Victim Compensation Board, the Social Security Administration, the sheriff's office and the FBI.
Again, the story made international news.
In the three years following her 2022 arrest, Papini's husband divorced her; her former mother-in-law sued her to recoup $50,000 she said she loaned Papini for her legal defense, and Papini took her ex-husband to court to request visitation rights with her children.
Her story took a new turn in spring 2025. Papini appeared in a documentary about the incident in which she claimed she really was abducted, and it was her ex-boyfriend in Costa Mesa who held her against her will and physically abused her.
This spring, as well as fighting the eviction notice, Papini filed a temporary restraining order against a Shingletown woman in April. The woman claimed Papini became involved with her longtime boyfriend. That restraining order was dismissed on Wednesday, June 4.
Record Searchlight journalists Damon Arthur, David Benda, Michele Chandler and Silas Lyons contributed to this report. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today. Thank you.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: 9 years after her 'abduction,' Sherri Papini is still in the news
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
31 minutes ago
- CBS News
Abandoned apartment buildings in Beverly Grove could be demolished after removing hazardous materials
A Beverly Grove neighborhood that has been dealing with squatters living in three abandoned apartment buildings was given a glimpse of hope that their problems would be solved on Friday. The residents say that their usually quiet street has been hit with a rash of fights, fires and people using drugs because of the nearly 20 people squatting in the vacant buildings. "I just feel like we are going in a circle calling the cops," resident Anita Cavallo said. "We called the cops, I don't know, about 20 times, 25 times." After residents raised their concerns on CBS News Los Angeles on Wednesday, the property owner said that he's doing everything he can to secure the buildings and push forward with construction. He said he's tried everything from securing the property to turning off the utilities, but the squatters keep coming back. "I don't believe anything he says," Cavallo said about the property owner. "It's been too long. We've been asking, requesting for signs up for protection, security, and he just finds excuses or he just doesn't answer." While there has been some progress, the neighbors called the Los Angeles Police Department twice on Friday to handle squatters and check out a disturbance at the vacant buildings. "I personally think that the owner only had the cops here to save face, but he refuses to put the property city trespassing signs up," resident Caron Feldmen said. The property manager said crews were removing hazardous materials on Friday but would have to wait two weeks before demolition could start. "Since you guys and the other media showed up, it looks like something's finally happening," one resident said. "They came the next day to start removing asbestos and taking down part of the roof." But with an alleged arsonist and a string of unsettling behavior, neighbors believe a little progress just isn't enough. "We wake up to screaming, drugs, violence, all of it," Cavallo said. "I have to keep my windows closed and my daughter is traumatized to sleep at home. She doesn't even like to come home." The property owner also said he plans to take the doors and windows off the units to speed things up.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek
The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Ex-Columbia Grad Student Khalil Released From ICE Custody
A former Columbia University graduate student detained for more than three months over his role in pro-Palestinian protests was released Friday from immigration detention, allowing him to continue a legal fight to avoid deportation while out on bail. Mahmoud Khalil, 29, was set free from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana after a judge ordered his release, Khalil's lawyers said in a court filing. Khalil claimed he'd been unlawfully held in retaliation for his activities to oppose Israel's war in Gaza with Hamas.
