A stunning admission has surfaced from former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, detailing a romantic relationship with her former bodyguard while both were involved with others. The revelation came not through a public statement, but within a sharply worded court filing responding to a lawsuit alleging intentional disruption of a marriage.
The legal battle centers around a claim filed in North Carolina, a state where a unique legal concept known as “alienation of affection” still exists. The lawsuit, brought by the estranged wife of Matthew Ammel, Sinema’s former security detail, seeks $25,000 in damages, accusing the Senator of knowingly interfering with a marital bond.
Sinema’s response doesn’t deny the affair. Instead, her legal team argues the case should be dismissed, asserting that the core of the relationship unfolded entirely outside of North Carolina’s jurisdiction. Court documents paint a picture of a connection that blossomed in May 2024, beginning in Sonoma, California.
The filings reveal a pattern of frequent communication – phone calls, emails, and encrypted messages via Signal – alongside intimate encounters in cities across the country. The details are remarkably candid, offering a glimpse into the emotional intensity of the relationship.
One Signal message, sent from Scottsdale, Arizona in June 2024, reveals Sinema’s longing: “I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me.” Ammel received the message while traveling in Kansas, highlighting the distance and the persistent connection.
The affair didn’t remain hidden for long. A chilling exchange occurred when Ammel’s estranged wife directly confronted Sinema via Signal, demanding to know if she was involved with her husband and accusing her of dismantling a family.
North Carolina is one of only six states that still allow lawsuits based on “alienation of affection,” a legal relic from a different era. These cases are notoriously difficult to win, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a previously loving marriage, its subsequent destruction, and a direct causal link to the defendant’s actions.
To succeed, the estranged wife must prove a genuine affection existed within the marriage before Sinema’s involvement, that this affection was demonstrably damaged, and that Sinema was directly responsible for that damage. The outcome of this case will hinge on whether those stringent requirements can be met.
