The Hollander Motion for Contempt Citation and Request for Forthwith Ruling

The Hollander Motion for Contempt Citation and Request for Forthwith Ruling

The SCANS of all filings and exhibits are posted at CreditCourt.

MY comments are in brackets.

 1. Dr. Hollander filed her Verified Complaint and Jury Demand, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress on October 17, 2008. Contemporaneously, Dr. Hollander filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

2. This Court granted Dr. Hollander’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on October 21, 2008 and a hearing was set for October 30,2008.

3. After the hearing on October 30, 2008, John and Barbara Bailey agreed to remove any and all libelous postings from the internet. They have complied with this agreement and have cooperated with Plaintiff to remove such websites. They contacted Ms. Baker and requested that she remove her posting. Ms. Baker refused to comply with their request.

4. It is notable that Ms. Baker does not know Dr. Hollander. She has never been treated by Dr. Hollander, nor has she ever had any contact, verbal or otherwise, with Dr. Hollander.

[– which is why I didn’t write that she almost killed my wife, or husband, for that matter]

5. When Ms. Baker refused to comply with the Court Order and remove negative references to Dr. Hollander from her website, Plaintiff lawfully and properly served Ms. Baker on December 12, 2008.

[I complied with the order and removed all critical opinions and the entire CreditSuit blog.]

6. On December 12, 2008, Ms. Baker was informed, by way of the court documents served upon her, that she was ordered to remove the reference to Dr. Tameira Hollander from her website, and remove any other negative references to Dr. Tameira Hollander from the internet.

[– And that’s exactly what I did.]

7. In the time since Ms. Baker was served, she has removed the material from her original website and replaced it with a reference to her new website:, posting the following statements:

  • “Colorado doctor Tameira Hollander obtained a Court Order requiring that I remove this blog.”
  • “That the judge would issue a restraining order without ANY evidence whatsoever is extremely suspicious.”
  • “Did they bribe the judge?”

(See Exhibit 1, homepage).

[– We will see whether they bribed the judge when I get the minute order he entered last week.  But I’m hopeful that he didn’t realize that I was included in the 10/21/08 Order, several people emailed me that they are “rubberstamped”, relying on truthful statements by the movants and the integrity of their attorneys.]

8. Ms. Baker has created an entirely new website, entitled http://doctor-tameirahollander-litigation. info, where she has been documenting her progress in the instant case and posting negative and untrue statements about Dr. Hollander. (See Exhibit 2, homepage).

[– NO untrue statements.]

9. Her new website is in direct violation of the Court Order requiring her to remove all negative references to Dr. Hollander from the internet. Her website contains the following statements:

  •  “The Colorado doctor who SUES to eliminate all criticism and unfavorable reviews to rewrite history.”  [– TRUE]
  • “Dr. Tameira Hollander killed free speech.”  [– TRUE – until is back up]”… based on Dr. Hollander’s web submission, subsequent failure to respond and perjury, I believe the Baileys’ claims of neglect and incompetence are very likely to be true.”  [– ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!]
  • “We need to expose bad doctors and can’t let lawyers erase legitimate criticism.”[– Who does NOT agree with me?]
  • “Dr. Hollander committed perjury…”  [– Beyond any doubt, read my counter claims, to be posted next]
  • “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.”  [– TRUE, as evidenced by this outrageous motion]

See Exhibit 2.  

10. By posting these negative comments on her new website, Ms. Baker is violating the Court Order.

11.Counsel for Dr. Hollander attempted to resolve the matter with Ms. Baker by offering to withdraw the lawsuit if Ms. Baker would remove references to Dr. Hollander on her website. Instead of agreeing to this, Ms. Baker has persisted in posting negative and derogatory comments about Dr. Hollander and her attorneys on the website. Ms. Baker wrote the following in an email to Dr. Hollander’s counsel, which she subsequently posted on her website:

  • “I will continue to publicize the issues and I will seek restitution.”  [– Absolutely!]
  • “Since this is clearly a harassment lawsuit, the allegations are entirely false AND Dr. Hollander committed perjury, I will publicize this lawsuit to make it THE free speech case.”  [– Read my counterclaims.]
  • “Bad doctors KILL patients and a doctor who files frivolous and harassment lawsuits, commits perjury and is not capable of properly completing a simple contact form and submitting her correct email address should NOT be treating patients.”  [– My opinion, YOU are free to have her treat you.]
  • “There is no logic, it’s just how I am. I don’t choose the easiest path to make the most money. I don’t spread my legs just because it hurts less. I’m not a slave and I’m not a coward. ”  [– ABSOLUTELY!   I will NOT be a slave and I AM fighting for MY rights, for YOUR rights, for EVERYBODY’S right to due process and free speech]

See Exhibit 3, email from Ms. Baker to Ms. Dorweiler, dated January 6, 2009.

12. Instead of removing the references, Ms. Baker has chosen to violate the Court Order and has posted new information regarding the lawsuit, Dr. Hollander and her attorneys several times every week.

[– and I will CONTINUE to post new information regarding this lawsuit until the judge tells me otherwise.  And then I will ask OTHERS to start posting.  Maybe the entire country will be prohibited to discuss doctor Hollander and her lawsuits?]

13.Ms. Baker is deliberately harassing Plaintiff and her counsel. On information and belief, Ms. Baker has a history of harassing people over the internet. Other victims of Ms. Baker’s deliberate harassment have been in contact with Plaintiff.

[– This is of course KEY to why it is MY LIFE that’s on the line.  All my major accomplishments for the last 15 or so years are on the web and involved exposing criminals, scammers and fraudsters.  And they could all have everything I accomplished DELETED if doctor Hollander has her way.] 

14. Additionally, Ms. Baker has accused Dr. Hollander and/or her attorneys of harassing her by posing as a “Matthew Hilton,” who, according to Ms. Baker, has been harassing her by email. Ms. Baker has threatened filing a harassment claim and made the following remarks in her email to Dr. Hollander’s counsel:

  • “Are you going to have me killed?”  [– I am very concerned about that, especially since I filed the counterclaims and named the attorneys and Hilton.  I’ve read about people who murdered for $500 and with the economy so bad, it’s probably less now.]
  • “… is doctor Tameira Hollander on drugs and pretending to be Mr. ‘Hilton’?”  [– I got NO answer.  But now I’m wondering whether it’s attorney Johnson himself or someone acting on his direction.  “Hilton” notified me around mid January that the contempt motion would be filed by the end of January. How did he know?]
  • will be filing a harassment complaint unless you ensure that the harassment stops IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY”  [– I kept my word and filed the complaint, but obviously it’ll take an OPEN LETTER to the Mohave County sheriff to see some action]
  • “I have not yet done an asset search for her, I have not searched for her home,’ her family, her kids, pictures, etc. Where do you want me to take this?”  [– Haven’t done that yet.  To get a lawyer to take this to jury, they want to know that they’ll get PAID.  Now that Johnson and his firm are named 3rd party and counterclaim defendants, chances of collecting a judgment ought to be pretty good.  I don’t know if their liability insurance has any coverage for my claims or whether it’s just malpractice.  Doctor Hollander ought to look into suing them too.]

See Exhibit 4, email from Ms. Baker to Plaintiff’s counsel, dated January 19, 2009.

15. Ms. Baker has also threatened severe bodily harm to anyone who enters her property in an attempt to serve her with documents:

• Ms. Baker decided to purchase a gun and to implement security measures and the next person to terrorize her will learn a painful lesson.

[– according to the deputy, I have to give a warning and then I can shoot if an intruder doesn’t leave MY PROPERTY.   So, it might be more than “painful”, since I’m not a good shot ANYTHING could happen.  In my OPEN LETTER to the sheriff, I will ask for the EXACT requirements in writing. ]

See Exhibit 5, paper copy of:

16. Ms. Baker is interfering with the dignity of the Court by questioning its reasoning in granting Plaintiff’s temporary restraining order.

[– Isn’t that my right? The court interfered with my ability to live in peace and to earn a living.  Of course the court will have the opportunity to explain its actions.]

17.C.R.C.P. 107(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the following shall constitute contempt:

“Disobedience or resistance by any person to or interference with any lawful writ, process, or order of the court; or any other act or omission designated as contempt by the statutes or these rules.”

18. This Court can access Ms. Baker’s website ( to determine that Ms. Baker is in direct contempt of the Court Order. Ms. Baker’s violation of the Court Order is accessible to anyone who has access to the internet. Ms. Baker has directly acknowledged this Court by questioning its motive in granting Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

[– I hope the judge focuses on reading my filings, but of course I’d be thrilled if he took the time to read here too.]

19. Direct contempt is defined in C.RC.P. 107 (a)(2) as:

“Contempt that the court has seen or heard and is so extreme that no warning is necessary or that has been repeated despite the court’s warning to desist.”

20. Under C.RC.P. 107(a)(4), the Punitive Sanctions for Contempt include punishment by unconditional fine, fixed sentence of imprisonment, or both, for conduct that is found to be offensive to the authority and dignity of the Court. [emphasis added]

21. Under C.RC.P. 107(a)(5), the Remedial Sanctions for Contempt include sanctions imposed to force compliance with a lawful or to compel performance of an act within the person’s power or present ability to perform.

22. Under C.R.C.P. 107(b), when a direct contempt has been committed, it may be punished summarily. Under the circumstances of this case, Ms. Baker’s refusal. to comply with the Court Order and further offend the authority and dignity of the Court by questioning the Court’s reasoning in granting the Order and suggesting that the court was bribed places Ms. Baker in contempt of court.

23. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a contempt citation against Ms. Baker because she has “purposefully availed” herself to the forum. See generally, Weise v. Casper, 2008 WL 4838682 (D. Colo. 2008). Ms. Baker has been intentionally harassing and making negative statements about Dr. Hollander, who is a resident of Colorado. Ms. Baker has been acting in direct violation of the Court Order requiring her to remove negative references about Dr. Hollander from the internet. Ms. Baker’s website accuses Dr. Hollander as being the “Colorado doctor who SUES to eliminate all criticism and unfavorable reviews to rewrite history.” Ms. Baker has clearly subjected herself to jurisdiction in Colorado.

[– I considered filing a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction and imperfect service or to remove the case to federal court, but I don’t have time to waste, need back online.  A I really want to find out what the judge was thinking when he signed that 10/21/08 TRO.  It’s about making sure that this NEVER happens again.]

24. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter and Order a Citation of Contempt against Ms. Baker. Concomitant with the entry of this Order and Citation, the Court should issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Ms. Baker, which warrant shall direct the Sheriff to apprehend Ms. Baker and bring her immediately before the Court for the imposition of punitive and/or remedial sanctions. Because Ms. Baker is a resident of Arizona, undersigned counsel has filed a proposed Letter Rogatory contemporaneously with this Motion for the Court’s consideration. [emphasis added]

—  [I read this when I got home from Kingman last Wednesday.  I cried.  I didn’t know what to do with my dog, should I just take him to the vet and have him put down because he hasn’t had the kennel shots?]

25. Prior to the imposition of any sanctions, Ms. Baker shall have the right to make a statement in mitigation.

[I still don’t know how much time I have to respond, they couldn’t tell me when I called the court last week.  But since the judge entered a MINUTE order, I don’t think he granted this motion.]

Respectfully submitted, January 29, 2009.


Duly signed copy on file at the law offices of Pryor Johnson Camey Karr Nixon, P.C.

Irving G. Johnson Irving G. Johnson, Esq., #1423
Lauren E. Dorweiler, Esq., #40322
Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.
5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Phone: (303) 773-3500


Doctor Hollander’s attorney Irving Johnson ought to be the dictionary definition for ruthless and evil.

I cried again now, the thought of having my dog killed because of these lying despicable lowlife  thugs is overbearing.

Note the BRILLIANT timing. 

My answer was due on 2/12, they know that I don’t have mail delivery at my house and timed it hoping that I’d get the filing a few days before the due date and that I’d be so devastated, I wouldn’t bother to file an answer. 

This is one time I’m glad I didn’t get my mail.

Soldiers kill and torture,  but no matter which side they’re on, most do it because they believe they are fighting for a good cause.

Lawyers like Johnson are mercenaries without ANY conscience, vile to the bone and ONLY motivated by money, power and sex.  

Perverts by any definition, without any regard for the law and the truth.

I still think that doctor Hollander is a victim too. 

Exploited and misguided. 

Of course a DOCTOR should know the meaning of perjury.  So an Open Letter will go to the Arapahoe sheriff and the county attorney. 

Perjury IS a crime. 

I want them to accept my report and I want them to INVESTIGATE. 

Considering the seriousness of my damages, the continued harassment and especially these threats of jail, I really think doctor Hollander needs to go to jail at least for a few months.

Doctor Hollander had PLENTY of time to apologize and to make things right. 

And she can’t claim her attorney didn’t keep her informed, after all, everything is posted here for her convenience.

Attorney Johnson should go to prison for a few years, but from all I found in my research subornation of perjury is NOT a crime in Colorado and he carefully failed to notarize anything himself.

I will be filing my Bar complaint against him and his firm.   From what I read, subornation of perjury is grounds to be disbarred.  There are also issues with “fairness” to all parties, etc.  That’ll be a separate post. 

The NEXT post is my answer and motion to vacated the TRO.

Update:  On 11/19/09, judge Gerald Rafferty ruled that doctor Hollander did NOT commit perjury.   He failed to explain why FALSE allegations and statements made UNDER OATH in a complaint and affidavit are NOT perjury.

Of course I will appeal this ruling.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.