Press release: Doctor Tameira Hollander Obtained Court Order to Delete CreditSuit.org Blog Without Identifying a Single Libelous Statement – Blogger Seeks Attorney

(LitigationNews) January 8, 2009—Dr. Tameira Hollander filed suit against her former patient Barbara Bailey and her husband John Bailey and against CreditSuit.org blog owner Christine Baker.  Ms. Baker found the summons, complaint and temporary restraining order outside her garage on December 12, 2008 and she removed her blog as required by the court’s order.  Ms. Baker seeks legal representation to vacate the TRO and to litigate this case to discourage future frivolous and harassment suits against consumer activists.

On October 17, 2008, attorneys Irving G. Johnson and Grant Wylie with Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C. in Greenwood Village, Colorado,  filed the lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Tameira Hollander in Arapahoe County District Court, case # 08CV2229.

Dr. Hollander committed perjury when she verified under oath the false allegations in the complaint, claiming that Ms. Baker republished “this same false and libelous information.  In fact, Ms. Baker only posted the LINK to the Baileys’ website “Tameira Hollander Nearly Killed My Wife*”, along with her comment:  “A great site and fantastic example of how everybody should DOCUMENT and PUBLICIZE their complaints!”

On 8/9/08, Ms. Baker received an ANONYMOUS demand through her web contact form to remove UNIDENTIFIED allegedly libelous information and it referenced http://tameirahollandermd.com – a site Ms. Baker knew nothing about until she received this notice.

The next day Ms. Baker requested the identification of the libelous information by email to the address provided on the web form.  However, her email was returned undeliverable.  Ms. Baker posted the entire correspondence at CreditSuit.org so that the anonymous complainant would see her good faith offer:

“Providing the URL(s), the EXACT quotes that are libelous and the documentation will result in corrections and/or updates.”

On 11/25/08, Ms. Baker received the 2nd submission related to Dr. Hollander through her contact form, claiming to be from attorney Irving G. Johnson. Ms. Baker did not believe that the sender really was an attorney as he misspelled “suit” and he also failed to provide a valid email address.

The entire message was very unprofessional and he wrote:

“… I will gladly serve you if you don’t remove her name from your website. …”

This sentence captures the essence of this litigation.  It is NOT libel to publish a name. Dr. Tameira Hollander and her attorneys attempted to intimidate Ms. Baker into rewriting history and creating the false appearance that Dr. Hollander was never accused of almost killing a patient.

On 12/11/08 around 7:30 AM, Ms. Baker woke up after less than 3 hours sleep when a man was screaming and banging on her door.  She was terrified, as she lives in the desert, her driveway is roped off and nobody in their right mind trespasses on private property in Arizona.

The maniac was there for what seemed like an eternity, screaming and banging at her doors and window.  If the window had been open, he would have touched her.  Ms. Baker was scared to death that he would enter her home – until 12/11/08, she rarely locked the doors.

The following evening, Ms. Baker observed the intruder pulling up at her driveway, ignoring the NO TRESSPASSING signs, removing the rope and driving onto her private property as if he owned it.  After he left, she found Dr. Tameira Hollander’s complaint, summons and TRO outside her garage.

Ms. Baker decided to purchase a gun and to implement security measures and the next person to terrorize her will learn a painful lesson.  Notably, she had posted at her websites many times that she will waive service if a complaint and summons are faxed to her.  Ms. Baker does not evade service because she does nothing wrong.

As Ms. Baker specializes in exposing and documenting scams and frauds, she has received many attorney threats of defamation suits.  None ever sued, as it is perfectly LEGAL to publish the TRUTH.

If Ms. Baker were to delete all references to Dr. Hollander, all the other subjects of her documentaries could sue her to have the TRUTH deleted.  Consumer MUST be able to warn others about incompetent doctors and fraudulent credit offers. As Ms. Baker documented numerous times, most scammers deceive and defraud with impunity because the regulators refuse to enforce consumer protection laws.

The judge ordered Ms. Baker to remove all statements critical of Dr. Hollander and to remove her blog at creditsuit.org.  The exhibits and arguments in the motion for the TRO pertained only to the Baileys.

Dr. Hollander and her attorneys Johnson and Dorweiler IGNORED Ms. Baker’s repeated requests to provide documentation to substantiate the allegations and they provided NOTHING. They also ignored Ms. Baker’s offer to add their statement to http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info and to include it in this news release.

Ms. Baker is seeking an attorney willing to fight for free speech, to ensure that the 1st Amendment is upheld and to discourage future frivolous and harassment suits. Her contact information is at http://creditfactors.com/about/contact/.



4 Responses to “Press release: Doctor Tameira Hollander Obtained Court Order to Delete CreditSuit.org Blog Without Identifying a Single Libelous Statement – Blogger Seeks Attorney”

  1. As far as trespassers and people terrifying people at their door, it should be outlawed nationally. I had a similar incident of a man stalking me at work, home, and a visit to a family memebrs house waving a gun. The man claimed to be a debt collector. The police were involved, and the outcome was that the company sending this stalker had the wrong person – it wasn’t even my bill.

    As far as freedom of speech, so long as the statement is true and the only thing published was the link and verbiage described, I do see this whole incident as a frivilous lawsuit and my first instinct would be to find out what the good doctor is hiding. If someone goes to this extreme over something relatively minor.. you have to remember the old addage “where there is smoke, there is fire”.

    As far as the legal pecedent, I would take this to the highest court possible because based on the information above this is a blatant attempt to squelch would be advocates.

    People don’t like the mirror held up to their face when they are in the wrong. A precential ruling could truly be damaging on a large scale prohibiting consumer advocacy and various groups/entities that help people with disputes/discrepacies such as the news media groups (i.e. ABC News 7 on Your Side) or “Rip Off Report” or even the Better Business Bureau complaint websites.

    My next question would be to the good doctor to investigate and see if the family is tied to the credit industry and being paid off to end consumer awareness. it has come out in recent months that many of the Dept of Banking officials within the States are paid off. It is a well known fact that the Financial industry in general finds lobbyistis that are connected to government officials such as neighbors, college buddies, to manipulate the relationship into passing their agenda. The lobbyists are paid handsomely for prostituting their personal ethics.

    Just a few thoughts that come to mind off the top of the head.

  2. Thanks for your comments and especially for reminding me to submit my complaint to Ripoff Report. It’s been on my list of things to do and I finally did it:

    http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news/2009/01/my-doctortameira-hollander-ripoff-report-complaint/

    And you better believe that I’ll take this case to the highest court possible, BUT, to take it to a higher court one of the parties would have to appeal. So, if I don’t find an attorney to my liking, I’ll probably lose and THEN I can appeal.

    Although, another possibility is filing a FEDERAL or ARIZONA suit against them (Hollander and possibly her attorney) for malicious prosecution or whatever other claims, I’m not an expert but that has been suggested to me. But I’ll need an attorney for that.

    And I hope you sued that collector!

    Your thoughts on a connection to credit are interesting, but I wasn’t trapped into this. The Baileys had THEIR site up for over a year and I really do believe that their allegations were true. There was so much DOCUMENTATION at the site, it was extremely specific, not your usual consumer “hate site.” And that’s of course why I recommended it.

    Also, I FORTUNATELY have always maintained SEVERAL sites and especially since last year I’ve started NEW blogs like this one for specific purposes or companies.

    But, I can hardly write an email or post at Trado without missing CreditSuit. At least 5 times a day I’d like to link to one of my posts there or somebody emails and ask for info that’s been posted at CreditSuit. Over 2,500 posts …

    “it has come out in recent months that many of the Dept of Banking officials within the States are paid off”

    I totally missed that and appreciate any and all info and especially LINKS on that!

    I recently posted at Trado: NY Times WaMu article – FAILS to address the role of the regulators, CRAs and FICO scores — they’re still in lala land.

  3. Just wanted to tell you all know how much I appreciate your postings guys.
    Found you though google!

  4. As we are all discussing Press release: Doctor Tameira Hollander Obtained Court Order to Delete CreditSuit.org Blog Without Identifying a Single Libelous Statement – Blogger Seeks Attorney | Doctor Tameira Hollander Litigation, For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction. However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled. This is perhaps a naïve interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day. For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation. That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it. Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead. A distant concept? I don’t think so.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.