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?



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.