Email to attorney Johnson regarding the pictures taken at my property and provided to "Mathew Hilton"

In his PROPOSED Order doctor Tameira Hollander’s attorney Irving Johnson wrote:

2. Ms. Baker has admitted she has no evidence to connect “Matthew Hilton” to Dr. Hollander, and Dr. Hollander has testified she does not know “Matthew Hilton” and he is not an agent of hers, and the Court therefore finds that “Matthew Hilton” is not Dr. Hollander’s agent for any purposes which might be pertinent to this matter.

Of course I have PLENTY of evidence to connect “Mathew Hilton” to doctor Hollander’s ATTORNEY!

Mr. Johnson,

Doctor Hollander testified at one of the hearings under oath that she does not know the person who identified himself as “Mathew Hilton” and viciously harassed, abused and threatened me. 

As you know, he sent me the pictures taken by your process server.

As you previously admitted, you have been in contact with other subjects of my publications and since “Mathew Hilton” also knew that you were going to file your contempt motion, he obviously received information and the pictures from you or doctor Hollander or someone else with access to your litigation strategy and the pictures.

Notably, the attacks stopped shortly after my 1/19/09 request.

Please identify all persons who received the pictures the process server took on my property from you or from anyone else in your office.

Christine Baker

I will update with his response.

My report regarding the removal of my allegations of doctor Hollander's perjury

To save myself some typing, here is my report:

I am the Defendant Christine Baker and I hereby submit my report pursuant to the Court’s 11/19/09 Order.

The Court’s minute order states that I am to make reasonable efforts to remove my defamatory remarks from the sites cited in doctor Hollander’s exhibits 10, 12 and 13.  Exhibits 10 and 12 are the correspondence between me and doctor Hollander’s attorneys.  I believe that exhibit 13 is the Google printout submitted by doctor Hollander’s attorney Johnson at the 11/19 hearing and it did NOT contain any references to perjury.

As I recall, the Court ruled on 11/19/09 that doctor Hollander’s false allegations in her Complaint and Affidavit in Support of her Motion for TRO, verified under oath, are NOT perjury and that I am to make reasonable efforts to remove those statements from my press release and postings.  I therefore contacted the sites identified in Exhibits 5 and 6, complaintsboard.com and ripoffreport.com.  

•1.      Complaintsboard.com

I contacted the site and apparently they deleted my entire thread at http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/tameira-hollander-c152085.html.

•2.      RipoffReport.com

I posted my deletion request at  http://www.ripoffreport.com/Doctors/Doctor-Tameira-Holla/doctor-tameira-hollander-obtai-e73d5.htm [Exhibit 1] and I also mailed my request to Ripoff Report by priority mail.  However, according to the Ripoff Report editorial policy at http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx, they never delete:

2. Our Policy: Why We NEVER Remove Reports

Since the Ripoff Report was started in 1998, our policy has always remained the same ­­­- we never remove reports.  We will not remove reports even when they are claimed to contain defamatory statements and even if the original author requests it.  Some people have criticized this policy as being unfair, but we strongly feel this policy is essential, fair, and far better than the alternative – rampant censorship…

 •3.      My own sites

I also spent many hours reviewing my posts at my own sites and I changed and updated my posts to reflect that this Court ruled that the false allegations made by doctor Hollander under oath are NOT perjury.

Respectfully submitted, December 17, 2009.

So there you have it.  The orders and rulings just make no sense. 

It is an ENORMOUS task to compile the many ridiculous rulings and the harassment filings by doctor Hollander’s attorney Irving J0hnson.  However, I will appeal and I will submit my complaint to the CO bar.

The million dollar question:

Why is it NOT perjury when doctor Hollander makes false allegation UNDER OATH?

FINALLY back after 4 long months of being censored

On 11/19/09, judge Rafferty ruled that I have the right to publish this lawsuit and to discuss this lawsuit.

He also ruled that the link I had posted to doctor Hollander’s former patient’s site was NOT defamation because the law provides me with immunity. The California supreme court had made it clear that only the person who originally made a defamatory statement is liable.  I will update with the specific legal issues later.

Judge Rafferty also ruled that doctor Hollander did NOT commit perjury when she falsely accused me of having maintained a “companion site” to the Baileys’ (former patient and husband) website, that I refused to remove defamatory statements, etc.   The RECORD speaks for itself.

So I have to remove my statements regarding doctor Hollander’s perjury from the web and I’m also not allowed to express my derogatory opinion of doctor Hollander. 

How could I be so dimwitted and think that sworn false statements are perjury? 

Of course I will APPEAL this ruling, but I will also comply with the court’s order. 

Of course I cannot remove my statements at OTHER sites where I can’t edit or delete my posts.  So judge Rafferty stated that I had to attempt to remove those statements and I’m still waiting for the written order to provide to these websites, ripoffreport.com and complaintsboard.com.

I’ve already edited my own sites and I can’t believe it took me almost a week to bring this blog back online.  I’m so busy, still trying to finish insulation and sheet rock work in my unfinished house and I have a gazillion projects going.

However, fighting for my right to FREE SPEECH is way at the top of my list. 

This is no longer about doctor Hollander (who should sue her attorney Irving Johnson for malpractice), but it’s about being able to expose crooks and frauds of all sorts. 

Any one of the subjects of my previous documentaries and investigations could simply sue me to get DELETION of their atrocities if they are allowed to falsely accuse me of defamation and the judges order entire websites removed. 

Links to SOME of my work: http://credit-reporting-collection-ftc-complaints.info/links/

In the last few weeks I had TWO more legal threats and I’m working on a new site with MULTIPLE blogs for the many morons, liars, cheats, thieves, spammers, scammers, criminals and frauds I deal with on a regular basis.

I will NOT assimilate and I will NOT become one of THEM.

I AM on my way out  and I’m perfectly capable of enjoying my life, off the grid, growing our food and building.  But the harder the scum tries to silence me, the more time and energy I will spend on defending my 1st Amendment right to FREE SPEECH.

Hollander motion for summary judgment and updates

I was hoping I’d FINALLY have doctor Tameira Hollander ANSWER my counterclaims, but instead they filed the motion for summary judgment.

I just scanned and posted the filings.

This sure is strange.  I filed my counterclaims on 2/13/09.  Then they filed a motion to dismiss and when my claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships wasn’t dismissed, I THOUGHT she’d finally have to answer.

I suspect they won’t appreciate my response:  the Bar complaint, the Medical Board complaint and the sheriff / county attorney complaint.

As busy as I am, I might as well get that done by the deadline for my response.  Everybody will get a copy of all complaints — I can’t wait!

What matters is not that they will most likely NOT investigate, but that the “confidential” complaints and the results will be PUBLISHED.

Also, I recently updated the CASE SUMMARY.

Huge vet bill after David Dees' Ocey was hit by car

David Dees is the artist who created the pic I’m using as logo for this site.

Ocey was hit by a car and the vet bill is in the thousands.

ocey

I’m not exactly loaded with cash, but I just got a new puppy and I know that our pets are better friends than most humans. 

Wish I could have sent more than $20 and hope that Ocey will have successful hip surgery and a speedy recovery!

If you enjoy David’s art, please donate a few dollars!

David Dees’ political satire illustrations set to the tune of Don Henley’s “Inside Job” — truly amazing!

RateMDs.com Tameira Hollander litigation post and listing of doctors requiring gag contract

First of all, I’m sorry I haven’t updated here.  I’m waiting on the ruling regarding the doctor Hollander and attorney Irving Johnson motion to dismiss my counter claims.  On my desk are the filings to be scanned.  I’ve just been so  busy.

It is VERY motivating to see the post about this litigation at Tameira Hollander, MD Accuses Blogger of Defamation via Weblink – Has Website Torn Down 

It is EXTREMELY important that everybody REPORTS doctors who have their patients sign away the right to tell others about their experiences.

The “gag contract” Wall of Shame

Dr. Carol Foulds
Overland Park, KS
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/864847

Dr. Gregg Govett
Midwest City, OK
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/155754

Dr. Robert Schwartz
Greenville, SC
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/899

Dr. Nicolas Slenkovich
Denver, CO
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/576584

I don’t want to find out at a doctor’s office that I have to relinquish my right to free speech and to warn others if I’m not happy with my doctor.  Of course I’ll ask about it when I make the appointment, but they might just lie about it.

And more important, only the PUBLICATION of the NAMES of doctors who require “gag contracts” will change this absurd requirement. 

The government, corporations and doctors know just about EVERYTHING about us.  Banks are allowed to report our financial information to the credit bureaus, but we aren’t allowed to discuss our doctors?  Doctors can actually run your credit report BEFORE treatment!

Can you require your bank to NOT disclose your payment history to anyone?  Of course not.

So please submit your report of doctors requiring you to waive your rights.

Incredibly, doctor Tameira Hollander’s malicious lawsuit could have killed me and maybe WILL kill me!

As I described in previous posts here, I became so distressed while working on my responses to doctor Tameira Hollander’s totally FALSE allegations (leaving me with only $250 income for two months while my site was shut down pursuant to the court order), I think I almost had a heart attack or stroke or “something.”   After I ate a LOT of cayenne pepper the pain in my arm went away.  It happened several times, every time when I was working on court filings and very upset about their lies.

So I’m very glad I had heard about the medicinal properties of cayenne pepper and I’m trying to post more about staying alive and healthy at http://trado.info/forums/survival-growing-food-building-off-the-grid-creating-communities/health-food

I’ve eaten almost a pound of cayenne pepper in the last 3 months, good thing I like HOT food.

However, while I’m convinced that one of the best ways to stay healthy is to stay away from doctors and hospitals, sooner or later, just about everybody will need medical care. 

I really need to make the time to report doctor Tameira Hollander to the medical board.

I sure hope that having critical comments removed from the web with false allegations is not an acceptable practice for any doctor.  I’ll greatly appreciate information about WHERE to file my complaint.

Please support free sites like http://www.ratemds.com by visiting their advertisers. 

I just clicked on a couple ads for REPORTS on doctors for a fee.  I wonder whether those reports contain information about lawsuits filed by these doctors to have critical reviews removed and whether they include information about the doctors’ “terms” such as having to waive the right to post critical reviews.

Colorado attorney malpractice

Can’t find what I’m looking for, but here’s a case doctor Hollander might want to look at if she decides to sue her attorney Irving Johnson and his firm:

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2005/2005q1/02CA0617.pdf

It’s basically about whether a certificate of review is required and in this case, the CO appeals court ruled that no cert is required if an attorney lets the statute of limitations expire before filing suit or in this case, telling the client that he’s no longer representing her.

How would the court feel about attorney Johnson’s subornation of perjury and recommending to SUE to have the TRUTH removed from the internet?

Is a certificate of review required?

I sure hope not.

The 3/30/09 minute order: TRO expired after 10 days

I just posted the minute order at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14592.html

I cannot believe lowlife attorney Irving Johnson’s contempt motion along with that order to have me arrested for violating the TRO left me in tears.  I thought they’d kill my dog while I’m arrested and extradited to Colorado.

That BASTARD!!!

I just hope scumbag Irving Johnson gets what he deserves.  I really hope Karma exists or hell or something to make him pay for the suffering he inflicted on me and most likely many others. 

Attorney Irving Johnson’s  “skills” indicate that I’m not his first victim. 

This lying scumbag lawyer made a career out of  destroying innocent law abiding honest people without any regard for the truth?

Doctor Tameira Hollander might be another victim. 

I wonder how much she paid him to FOREVER destroy her reputation, turning her into the lying doctor who tried to “clean” the internet of all publications mentioning her name through intimidation and false accusations.

How can it be that so many lawyers have no conscience and no soul?

Hollander motion to dismiss my counterclaims

On 3/13, attorney Dorweiler filed the motion to dismiss my counterclaims. Expecting it, I made three trips to my mailbox the following week. By Friday, 3/20/09, one week later, I still had not received the filing.

The next week I had to prepare and argue over the credit bureau and NCO deposition and travel to Las Vegas for the depo.  So when I received the motion, I barely glanced at it and I assumed it had been filed late.

I was quite surprised when I finally read the motion a couple days ago and it actually was filed on the 13th. The mailing comes from LexisNexis in Oregon and it was postmarked by their Pitney Bowes machine on 3/16. I find it hard to believe that I don’t receive a letter by Friday that was mailed in Oregon on Monday.

Maybe they got it to the post-office on Monday after the mail went out?

Obviously, I should have AT LEAST an extra seven days for service by mail.

It is unacceptable that I am continually subjected to having half the time or NO time to respond or reply to motions.

Ms. Dorweiler agreed to an extension to 4/10, but now I have to incur the expense and waste my time to write a motion to the court, prepare the order, etc. etc. etc. And then I have to pay to mail my response and once again I am prejudiced because I can’t e-file.  It is NOT possible to get mail from Kingman to the court in one day. There’s no point to paying for express mail.

I don’t deserve to be prejudiced just because I’m not a Colorado lawyer.

At the very least they ought to serve me electronically.

Unfortunately, I can no longer scan on this old Dell notebook and Canon tech support was NO help at all. So you’ll have to wait for the scans until I have a new computer.

Been very busy with client work, got numerous orders since CreditSuit.org is open again and I’m slowly catching up on my bills.

The court recently approved my filing fee waiver and I’ll have to save up to pay the subpoena fees to get Matt Hilton’s id and location.

Since I’m not an attorney, I need to have the court issue the subpoena, prejudice after prejudice …. Hopefully I’ll have time to prepare that by next week and mail it with my response to the motion to dismiss.

I’m also planning to submit my complaint about attorney Irving Johnson to the Colorado Bar Association 

As I previously wrote here, subornation of perjury is not an acceptable practice according to the Colorado Bar website.

It’s about time the lying lawyers get the exposure they deserve and I’m looking forward to the Bar response.

Here is an interesting article about Colorado lawyers making false statements:

http://www.mullikenlaw.com/Articles.asp?ID=25

A colleague of mine summed it up very well in an email he sent me in response to my February President’s column.  After providing me with three or four “war” stories about problem attorneys, discovery disputes, and certification issues, he said the following about abusive discovery tactics and the like:           

These antics would be funny if these lawyers hadn’t been so successful in derailing proceedings and running up costs for the opposing side — that is the piece the bench seems to forget, the real consequences of letting a lawyer get away with these expensive games … there is a real cost to clients and the integrity of the judicial system.  Allowing lawyers to make false statements and obstruct the system without consequences or even comment undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system as a whole and permits real harm to the client that is the victim of these games. [emphasis added]

 

This was in 2006.  Obviously, NOTHING has been done in Colorado to STOP the lawyers’ lies to the courts.  I’ll  email that firm, need to get an attorney.

I have NEVER been able to get any Bar to take action against scum sucking bottom feeding lying lawyers, so I expect nothing different.

The point of the exercise is to publicize attorney Johnson’s misconduct and the Bar’s response – whatever it may be.

I’ve been so busy with the credit litigation, paid work, building and gardening,  it’s about time I get back to doctor Hollander and her goons. 

After next week’s response it’s time for another press release.

3/2/09 Hollander reply and motion for reconsideration re. TRO contempt

Here is the 3/2/09 Hollander opposition to vacating TRO and motion for Reconsideration re. contempt motion.

http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14580.html

It truly sucks that I get the filings so much later.  The envelope is postmarked by LexisNexis File & Serve on 3/3/09. That’s probably because it wasn’t e-filed until 5:39 PM on the 2nd.

It was pure coincidence that I got it “already” since I only check my mailbox once a week as it’s a few miles from my house.

Exhibit 1 was NOT served and I emailed attorney Dorweiler:

Ms. Dorweiler

I just received your 3/2/09 filing today and it didn’t include the referenced exhibit.  Did you actually file it?

Thanks,

Christine Baker

I got the proposed order, but no exhibit.  And you’d think that LexisNexis wouldn’t just forget to send it.