Doctor Hollander got extension to file responsive pleadings to me counter claims

Attorney Dorweiler emailed this afternoon, requesting an extension till Friday 3/13/09 and since they gave me an extension, I don’t have a problem with that.

However, as I recall from reading the rules, we need to prepare a case management plan before I can conduct discovery.  So I just wrote to her:

Ms. Dorweiler,

No problem, Friday is fine.

Been meaning to contact you to see when we can work on the case management plan, as I would like to submit my written discovery ASAP.  I need to find out who and where Mathew Hilton is so that I can have him served.

Please let me know,

Christine Baker

At 03:10 PM 3/9/2009, you wrote:

Ms. Baker,
I am writing to see if you would agree to give me a few extra days in which to file a responsive pleading to your counterclaims.   I was hoping you would agree to give me until this Friday, March 13.
Please let me know whether or not you will agree to this.
Thank you.
Lauren E. Dorweiler, Esq.

They’ll probably file a motion to dismiss for at least some of the claims, but that’s ok.   I’ll have to do a LOT more research and am still wondering whether I shouldn’t file a new suit in FEDERAL court. 

Haven’t had ANY time to work on this as I’ve been busy working on my response to the credit bureaus’ and NCO’s lying lawyers motion to dismiss.

It’s 17 pages long, but if you have an interest in how COMPLETELY and TOTALLY corrupt the American judicial system is and what I’m going to DO about it, reading it will be worth your while.

The similarities to THIS case are unbelievable.  Totally different claims, but the IDENTICAL lying lawyers.   And I already documented perjury by the Experian employee Kimberly Hughes when I deposed her.

So now I got TWICE the motivation to pursue the lying lawyers.

Consumer Affairs vowes to Medical Justice provides doctors with gag orders to prevent negative physician reviews

A reader sent me the link to this article, thanks!

Doctors Gagging Patients
Physicians insist patients aren’t competent to criticize them

By Jon Hood

March 5, 2009

Recent news reports have focused attention on a long-established but little-noticed practice: doctors forcing their patients to sign forms promising not to post an online review of the physician’s performance. The forms are provided by Medical Justice, a company whose website describes it as “relentlessly protecting physicians from frivolous lawsuits.”

Medical Justice owner Jeffrey Segal, himself a physician, insists that online medical reviews “are little more than tabloid journalism without much interest in constructively improving practices,” and defends his business as trying to prevent frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

Indeed, the company’s website loudly proclaims that, “While Medical Justice is sensitive to the fact there are legitimate claims by patients who have been harmed by negligent care, the fact remains that the majority of medical malpractice cases are ultimately deemed without merit.” The site further claims that, while eight to ten percent of doctors nationwide are sued for malpractice, that number drops to less than one percent for those who use Medical Justice’s services.

Medical Justice charges $1,500 for a one-year membership, which includes the right to use the generic gag order form, an “early action strategy” to be executed if the member is sued for malpractice, and a “pre-emptive critical practice infrastructure” to deter potential plaintiffs who are considering bringing an action. The plan also promises a pursuit of counterclaims against expert witnesses.

Almost 2,000 doctors have signed up since the service began two years ago.

The company encourages doctors to have all patients sign the “gag order” forms, and to tell them to go somewhere else if they refuse. While Segal insists that the forms are meant as a shot across the bow against Web sites, the form’s language warns that patients who breach its terms could also be subject to legal action.

While the forms may seem draconian, it’s unclear whether a court would uphold them. A court could potentially find that the unequal nature of the doctor-patient relationship makes the forms voidable; since patients place a large amount of trust in their doctors, the physician arguably has the upper hand in any agreements he or she enters into with the patient.

Additionally, the threat of withholding medical service unless the patient signs the form could be seen as a kind of undue influence and, in some cases, could subject the physician to sanctions by state licensing boards.

Whether the form is enforceable or not, the physicians who fork over the $1,500 for the comprehensive plan will likely still find harsh words about them online. That’s because at least one Web site — — publishes comments anonymously and has no idea who posts on their site. Cofounder John Swapceinski has also refused several recent requests from doctors to remove the complaints altogether.

Swapceinski isn’t shy in making his opinion about Medical Justice known. As he recently told the Associated Press, “They’re basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive.” He’s planning to start a “Wall of Shame” listing the doctors who subscribe to the service.

More to come

A spokesman for, which has not routinely published consumer complaints about doctors, said most of the complaints it receives do not deal with malpractice issues but with billing disputes and the physician’s general attitude towards patients.

Given the attempt by Medical Justice to help doctors gag patients, however, said it would immediately begin publishing complaints about doctors and dentists and would search its database for previously unpublished complaints.

Medical Justice, meanwhile, claims it’s all for online physician ratings — but claims it wants them done right. On its blog, the company says it is “exploring” partnering with online ratings company, which Medical Justice views as “the one site pushing a scientifically validated survey methodology.” In the same blog entry, the organization defends its practices as necessary in an industry where doctors can’t respond to unwarranted feedback from “people posing as patients — such as disgruntled employees, ex-spouses, or competitors.”

The problem with this argument is that it could be made about any industry — lawyers, realtors, and car mechanics all run the risk that someone with a chip on their shoulder will post a scathing review that happens to be entirely false. It begs the question whether such risk comes with the business. If all else fails, though, there’s always

I’m very glad to see and take a stand to censorship.

However, where is the LISTING of all these doctors who gag their patients?

INSTEAD of being put in the very awkward position to find out at the doctor’s office that they are being gagged, patients should be able to look up online which doctors to AVOID.

And of course the ability to use and enforce these gag orders has to be litigated. 

Or could we dare hope for Congress and President Obama to oppose such vile censorship, designed ONLY to allow doctors to commit malpractice with impunity?

I’d like to see some doctors speak out against censorship.

I know that not ALL doctors suck!

I’m too busy right now, but of course I’ll post MY complaint at

OTHER defamation threats received over the years

I have SO much going on, I forget the many battles I’ve fought.

A comment submitted at CreditSuit reminded me of one such battle with attorney Jaromir Kovarik.   As so often, it turns out that I not only was absolutely correct with my assessment of Kovarik and KTHL, but I underestimated their incompetence.

So I just had a look at my Kovarik posts and saw my 2005 editorial policy and this is my response to attorney Kovarik’s legal threats:

4/26/05 — my response with the explanation of my editorial policy, I’ve already explained it to Kovarik numerous times, a slow learner

Dear Mr. Kovarik:

I have been incredibly busy and truly appreciate your reminder to post about your deplorable and illegal conduct at Fight-Back!!! and at the junk fax blog. I even made a special topic for you at Fight-Back!!! and you are now featured in your own category at the blogs. Enjoy!

I already repeatedly explained to you my editorial policy, but, since you seem to be a very slow learner, here it is again:

Upon written notice (best by fax to 571-222-1000) of any false statements I will decide whether a correction is appropriate. You need to provide me with the URL for the page and include the exact excerpt you object to.

As you also know, I am prepared to document my allegations. So, here is how this works:

1) You send me what you feel is incorrect.

2) I review your complaint and if I agree, I post the appropriate updates.

3) If I don’t agree, I’ll post my supporting evidence to document my allegation. My documentation includes the recorded phone calls, the e-mails and postings.

If you feel that you need to file a harassment suit against me because I’m publicizing your deplorable conduct and doing my civic duty to warn other potential victims who consider working for you or having you represent them regarding junk faxes, please don’t waste any money on serving me. I’ll accept the waiver of service by e-mail or fax.

As always, all communications are subject to publication.


Christine Baker

c: posted at Fight Back!!! & with permission to repost for non commercial purposes

I stood up for my civil rights AND I helped MANY people avoid getting screwed by morons. 

People need to conduct their research on the web BEFORE doing business or associating with someone.  It’s NOT free, as it does require time.  And that’s why so many people don’t do it. 

Of course I can’t feature every moron on the planet.

That’s YOUR job!

If more people took the time to expose malpractice and scams, we wouldn’t have so many problems.

I am so APPALLED by the many American cowards. 

I’ve been in many countries and often admired how people risked their lives for their freedom and independence.

But I’ll also never forget my trips through Bulgaria in the late 70s and early 80s when it was ruled by one of the most oppressive communist regimes. 

One time I got a speeding ticket and the cops demanded local money, which I didn’t have.  They took my passport and I had to go find a place to exchange money.

I do not remember how I exchanged money, but I do remember that there were only a few people on the street, actively avoiding me and I still see the face of an older woman I approached to ask for directions to a bank.  People were afraid to talk to foreigners.

It was only a 4 hour drive through Bulgaria and I always avoided stopping.  Fill up in Yugoslavia and drive straight through to the Turkish border.  The Turks were more fun even on the day after the military coup.

The Bulgarian scenery was actually quite nice and it included crossing spectacular mountains that reminded me of Dracula’s castle.   But the entire country was covered with an aura of fear and oppression and the people weren’t afraid of Dracula, but they were afraid of their government and the courts.

More and more often I  sense this same fear in Americans.

People are terrified of the courts, lawyers and the government.  Rightfully so, as documented by my litigation. 

The Bulgarians eventually rebelled.  I don’t understand why Americans aren’t fighting for THEIR freedom before the corporate fascists gain total control.

Americans are losing their rights to free speech, to bear arms, to NOT subject their kids to potentially deadly vaccines and they even cheerfully line up for flu shot to help ensure they’ll get Alzheimers.

Most people in the “world’s greatest country” are acting like morons and cowards and many who know what’s going on choose to hide instead of fight.

Very scary.

Doctors are organizing to legally censor their patients

A reader sent me the link to this very interesting article:

Medical Experts Riled as Doctors Try to Censor Their Patients

Thursday, February 19, 2009
By Joseph Abrams

Doctors across the country are forcing their patients to sign waivers giving up their right to post comments and reviews about them online, a move experts say is unethical and should be prohibited.

“It was not only patients posting information, but people posing as patients,” Segal said, including “disgruntled employees, ex-spouses and competitors.”

Consumer-oriented Web sites like RateMDs and give Web users a chance to recommend and review physicians and hospitals nationwide. But some doctors now are telling their patients to censor themselves — or find another physician.

“This is just the guild trying to protect itself from accountability to those it serves. That’s not professional behavior — this is self-interested behavior,” said Laurence McCullough, professor of medical ethics at Baylor College of Medicine.

“And as a rule, when a doctor acts primarily out of self-interest, it’s ethically suspect.”

Among the groups spearheading the move is a company called Medical Justice, which says it is helping protect doctors from online libel, which it says is an “emerging threat” within the medical profession.

Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a former neurosurgeon who founded Medical Justice to help doctors fight off lawsuits, said he robustly supports the sites in theory, but in practice they aren’t properly monitored and can do irreparable harm to a doctor’s reputation — especially when people pretending to be former patients write phony reviews.

Segal and other medical experts say that while the ratings sites may have good intentions, little of the information they impart is of use, as the most important indicators of clinical care can only be judged by experts. The rest, they say, is just “random discussion.”

“I think the real problem is that the info may not be all that useful,” said Dr. Wendy Mariner, a law professor and director of the Patients’ Rights Program at Boston University. “Patients may be able to evaluate whether a physician is responsive, courteous, on time, provides useful info to the patient,” she said, but they cannot judge the most important issues concerning medical care.

But Mariner said the waivers create “an adversarial relationship” between doctors and patients, and could possibly limit options for patients seeking care. “If this kind of thing gains any traction, medical licensing boards will, and I think should, prohibit it,” she told

Even without action from medical boards, Mariner said patients should be wary of doctors who ask them to muzzle themselves.

“What patient would want to go to a physician that asks for a waiver? It’s a big red flag signaling that the physician is afraid of being evaluated,” she said.

Under the terms of the agreements, patients promise they “will not denigrate, defame, disparage or cast aspersions upon” their doctors or post comments to any Web pages by name or anonymously, according to one contract obtained by Florida Health News.

Legal experts say private practices are permitted to ask this of their patients, and they do not violate any free speech laws.


Last time I went to see a doctor, I was in HORRIBLE pain and had to have a wisdom tooth pulled.  I had to sign a whole bunch of papers and I have NO idea what I signed.  But I posted my review at CreditSuit.

I couldn’t possible have cared less about my right to publicize my opinion about the treatment.  And even if I hadn’t been in pain, would I really want to go home and find another doctor?  I drove 120 miles to get there.

I remember setting up an appointment for a routine exam with my gynecologist in 1998 before I left San Francisco.  I had to wait SIX WEEKS!!!  HMOs …

One can only hope to NOT NEED a doctor. 

Eat healthy, organic food, get out into the SUNSHINE and pick up a shovel to get some exercise.

Doctors sure are turning healing and GOOD work into another vile profession. 

Right up there with LAWYERS.

Of course there still are very competent and caring doctors and lawyers, but obviously there are many incompetent scumbags.

I wonder if doctor Tameira Hollander requires her patients to sign a waiver of their 1st Amendment rights.

My answer and counterclaims and motion to vacate the TRO

Obviously, my motion to vacate the temporary restraining order is moot, since the judge ordered last week that no TRO pertaining to me ever existed.  

It truly sucks to have to wait for snail mail.

I really don’t understand why I can’t at least register with Lexis-Nexis to receive the filings electronically.  Nobody returned my call after I left a message a couple days ago with the court regarding e-filing.

The filings I mailed last week are posted at CreditCourt.

My answer is about 20 pages, but you can skip the answers and affirmative defenses and go to page 5 to read what really went down.  Very little legalese, mostly in the plain English.

There may well be deficiencies with my counterclaims, but I have lots of time to amend my claims or maybe even file a complaint in federal court.   I’ve been filing electronically in Arizona federal court for years, so that would be a lot more feasible. 

But for now, I’ll see what happens and I’ll continue to try to find an attorney to represent me. 

Have to write a new press release with all the updates, open letters to the Arapahoe and Mohave county attorneys and sheriffs to request prosecution of the Hollander [edited pursuant to the 11/19/09 ruling that the Hollander false allegations under oath are NOT perjury] and the Hilton harassment,  figure out how to send subpoenas to Comcast and Yahoo to ID Hilton, I wish my days had 100 hours …

And I’m considering filing a motion for sanctions. 

That will require some research and legal advice.

Doctor Tameira Hollander's contempt motion DENIED

The SCAN of the 2/10/09 order is posted at CreditCourt.

Here is the text, edited for easier reading as I’m one of the many with an ALL CAPS reading disability, I added line breaks and highlighted the most important parts:

2/10/2009 Minute Order

Judge: gjr. Counsel for plaintiff have contacted the division by phone and requested a ruling on the 1/29/09 motion for contempt and forthwith hearing re: def. Baker, a resident of Arizona.

The court finds that plt. filed a motion for TRO on 10/17/08 that resulted in def.’s John and Barbara Bailey stipulating to the requested TRO on 11/17/08.

Def. Baker was not part of said stipulation and review of the ROA reflects no TRO has ever entered against def. Baker.

Indeed, it would appear that service on def. Baker was not even attempted until 12/12/08.

The parties have agreed to extend the date for her answer to 2/12/09.

Order: Plt’s motion is denied.

Notice of this min. Order will be achieved by scanning it into lexis/nexis pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, sec.1-26(11).

Notice to def. Baker, who has not yet appeared via counsel, will be achieved by plt mailing a copy of this min.order to her last known address and certifying to the court within five days that this has been done. /gjr [emphasis added]



I am STILL stunned. 

I made a special trip to Kingman today to pick up the order and it was there twice, once mailed by the court and also mailed by the Hollander attorneys as the court required.

Obviously, this shows my legal incompetence, I BELIEVED that I had to take down

I was so excited about getting back online and then it took me HOURS.   I wish ExpressionEngine (the software) wasn’t so hard to use.    Unlike all my other forums and blogs, there’s no simple “take site offline” button to check.  You have to RENAME files and apparently I somehow accidentally moved the system files into my image directory. 

It took me forever to figure out how to fix it because I NEVER do anything at that site other than upload upgrades and I haven’t done that in a long time because it’s such a hassle.

It’s been horrible not being able to find my posts and having all these bad links.   So many times I wanted to post a link or send a reader a relevant link. 

Total Entries: 2379
Total Comments: 3825

Even I as adminstrator couldn’t access the site while offline. 

Tomorrow I have to call the court again.  Before I went to Kingman I called and was told that my 2/11/09 express mailing still hadn’t arrived yet.

I just checked again now online and says that no information is available on the web.  I was getting really frustrated and stressed again and looked for a phone number. 

Amazingly, the automated phone system claims that the mailing was delivered last FRIDAY.   I don’t understand it, I talked to two different people since the post-office claims it was delivered and they said there was nothing.

Stress, stress and more stress and frustration.

But at least CreditSuit is online again!

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.] Read more…

Update: My answer and counterclaims against Hollander, Hilton, Johnson and Pryor, Johnson, Carney, Karr, Nixon P.C. and their contempt motion

I’m sorry it took so long to update and I will be posting the filings ASAP, but I had a lot to catch up on after researching and writing my filings for over a week and it’s very hard to work on my old notebook.  It’s very slow as soon as I have a few windows open.

After my computer died a week before my answer was due on Thursday the 12th, I barely got done and it’s far from what I’d like it to be, but it’s a good start.

I modeled my filings a bit after the filings at 

There’s nothing like sample filings to work off.   But my head was still spinning to grasp the concepts of 3rd party defendants and counterclaim defendants, counterclaimants, …

I added Mathew Hilton, Hollander attorney Irving Johnson and his firm Pryor, Johnson,  Carney, Karr, Nixon P.C. as 3rd party defendants.

As I understand it, 3rd party defendants are the people at least in part responsible for the plaintiff’s damages.

Doctor Hollander sued me, claiming that my allegedly defamatory statements caused her to suffer damages.  In fact, if nobody had contacted me about the sidebar link to the Baileys’ site, most likely I would have deleted it without ever posting about it.  It could have DISSAPEARED without a trace like MANY other links in the sidebar that went bad or became irrelevant.  I’m a VERY busy person, involved in credit reporting litigation and trying to finish my house,  earning a living, starting a new currency and changing the world.

When doctor Hollander and her attorney Johnson CONTACTED me and threatened me with a defamation suit, I posted their submissions and my comments, including the request for specific libelous statements on my site.  Many THOUSANDS of posts and comments are at the still shut down, so I’m working off memory and not sure whether I or a reader posted anything else, but probably NOT since they never provided ANY documentation regarding  my site.

And when they SUED me and the process server harassed me, I exercised my right to publish the filings and all the information about the lawsuit and I posted at other sites, trying to find a lawyer and to expose their tactics.

Next, it got REALLY ugly when Matthew Hilton started to submit his abusive, threatening and harassing comments and emails, he didn’t quit when I asked him to, when I imposed a fee and when I pleaded with him not to contact me again.  

I finally filed a complaint with the sheriff after Hilton sent me the composite picture of my house, car, camper and laundry on the clothesline, obviously taken by the process server while trespassing on my property. The gruesome details are in my filing and it got quite long.  

My counterclaims

My counterclaims against all 4 (including Hollander) are for libel/defamation (the complaint, Hilton’s posts and blog with false fraud allegations about me), intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortuous interference with my business.  I made a total of $250 since I had to shut down and I’m lucky I didn’t have a heart attack due to the emotional distress.

I pretty much copied the Hollander’s complaint for the causes of action.

And for Johnson, Pryor Johnson and Hollander I added malicious prosecution, perjury and subornation of perjury.

Getting my filings mailed wasn’t easy.

As I was printing the final version of my answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, motion to vacate the TRO, exhibits, etc.,  my printer had the first paper jam ever and it sounded like something broke.   Fortunately, I got it going again.

Then I ran out of ink.  Fortunately, I had a new Canon replacement cartridge so I didn’t have to change the microchip for the refills I normally use.

It was after 2:30 pm when I finally left. On the way to Kingman, some tourists flagged me down for direction to the Skywalk.  I tried to talk them out of it, it was way too late to take that crummy dirt road up to Grand Canyon West.

I still had to get the answer and my affidavit notarized and my main bank closed at 4 pm.  Fortunately, my “spare” bank is open till 5 pm and the lady was nice enough to make copies for me.

And I had to pawn my gold ring and a little nugget to cover my phone/DSL bill.  Fortunately, no long wait at the pawnshop.

At the post-office it took me a long time to get everything in order.  I had brought my stapler and I had prepared the envelopes to Pryor Johnson and to return filed copies to me with printed address labels and I brought labels for the court express mailing since I didn’t have a flat rate envelope at home.

I also brought all these old stamps I’ve had for years, many for 37 cents or without any printed value.  I normally print all my postage online, but I figured this was the time to use up those stamps, broke as I am.

Then I had to fill out 4 mailing forms for the express mail (couldn’t use my printed labels) before I got the court address right.  I asked the guy to help someone else while I completed the express form, but he didn’t want to.  And 3 times we started talking while I was writing and I made a mistake.  I didn’t think I’d ever get that form done. 

The flat rate express envelope was COMPLETELY covered with stamps.  I should have taken a picture. 

And then he told me that next day delivery wasn’t guaranteed, but it would PROBABLY get there on Thursday.  $17.50 for THAT.


I picked up a contempt motion from Pryor Johnson in Kingman while in town and I will scan and post that next.

On Friday afternoon I called the court and they hadn’t received the mailing yet, but they also hadn’t received ANY mail yet.

And they mentioned something about a call from Hollander attorney Johnson requesting an expedited ruling on the contempt motion and that a minute order was mailed to me. 

So I planned on going back to Kingman tomorrow (almost 120 mile round trip) to pick that up, but apparently the post-office is closed for Presidents Day.

I also filed an address change with the court to a mailbox by the side of the road a few miles from my house.  There’s a lot of mail theft and misdeliveries, but I just can’t drive to Kingman all the time to get the mail.

I tried to talk to someone at the court again about getting at least electronic notices and delivery of filings even if I can’t file electronically, but I only got a VM and didn’t get a return call yet.   Don’t know if CO state court is open tomorrow.

There are more updates and I do have a plan, but first I’m going to make some bread and this post is long enough as it is.

Colorado: truth is the ultimate defense to defamation allegation: Anderson v. Cramlet, 789 F.2d 840 (10th Cir. 1986) — at the page are the links to the CITED cases, a great resource.

Obviously, I have the ultimate defense, I didn’t publish what they’re accusing me of.  But it’s very good to see that the TRUTH still goes a long way — well, at least it did back in 1986. 

The entire opinion:

Read more…

Colorado PERJURY and Subornation of Perjury

The CURRENT Colorado CRIMINAL code – PERJURY:,%20art.%208,%20p.%205%27%5D

18-8-502. Perjury in the first degree.

(1) A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.

(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the defendant’s mistaken belief that his statement was not material is not a defense, although it may be considered by the court in imposing sentence.

(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class 4 felony.

Doctor Hollander certainly qualifies for conviction. 

What about attorney Johnson who apparently prepared the complaint and affidavit for doctor Hollander’s signature KNOWING that the allegations against ME where entirely fabricated?

Apparently that’s called SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

SUBORNATION OF PERJURY – The procuring another to commit legal perjury, who in consequence of the persuasion takes the oath to which be has been incited.

To complete the offence, the false oath must be actually taken, and no abortive attempt to solicit will complete the crime.

But the criminal solicitation to commit perjury, though unsuccessful, is a misdemeanor at common law.

The act of congress of March 3, 1825, provides, that if any person shall knowingly or wilfully procure any such perjury, mentioned in the act, to be committed, every such person so offending, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor, not exceeding five years, according to the aggravation of the offence.

5 years of hard labor for attorney Johnson would be just about right for his stunt. 

But, we don’t have hard labor in prisons anymore and are LAWYERS now exempt? 

What does the Colorado Bar have to say on the subject?

Rule 3.1. Meritorius Claims and Contentions

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

 [3] The lawyer’s obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.


[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. [emphasis added]

I’m looking forward to see attorney Johnson’s argument.

 Rule 3.4. Fairness To Opposing Party and Counsel

 A lawyer shall not:

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; [emphasis added]

 Attorney Johnson MUST have known that he directed doctor Hollander to verify entirely FALSE allegations in her complaint and affidavit.

Searching at the CO Bar site for perjury, I didn’t find much:

A web search got this interesting letter.  The Colorado Weld County district attorney Kenneth R. Buck recommended in his 7/8/08 letter to chief justice James H. Hiatt NOT to prosecute a police officer for perjury (false testimony in a murder trial). 

A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.” C.R.S. § 18-8-502(1). Lack of knowledge that the false statement is material is not a defense. C.R.S. § 18-8-502(2).

Certain elements would not be at issue in a Perjury trial under the facts of this investigation. Specifically, under C.R.S. § 18-5-501(2), “a trial is an official proceeding,”

People v.  Chaussee, 880 P.2d 749, 762 (Colo. 1994). Similarly, the oath or affirmation that all witnesses take at trial meets the requirements in C.R.S. §§ 18-8-501(2) (a) and (b).

Obviously, doctor Tameira Hollander’s FALSE accusations are not only material, but the ONLY reason the court ordered shut down.

She verified the FALSE statements under oath, she knew the statements were false and her false statements were filed with the court by attorney Johnson who KNEW that the allegations against me were totally fabricated.

My website has now been shut down for almost 2 months based on nothing but doctor Tameira Hollander’s sworn false statements.

There’s a TON of info at and I’ll have to spend some serious time at this site after I’m done with my filings later this week.


18-8-510 – Subornation of perjury


While the subornation of perjury is defined as grounds for disbarment, and for barring a person from holding a state office in the state constitution, it is not in and of itself a crime at present. That absence, or loophole, encourages attorneys, victim’s advocates, shelter workers, etc., to “suggest” to their clients that obtaining a restraining order might be to their advantage. Many shelters provide boilerplate language for use by women in filing DV charges or restraining orders claiming abuse. Victim’s advocates will frequently help women write out requests for restraining orders when asked.

A lawyer who presents a witness knowing that the witness intends to commit perjury thereby engages in the subornation of perjury {People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1981)} and under Article XXII, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution such an attorney is to be disbarred. However, statutory enforcement of that provision of the Constitution is currently lacking.

A major problem today is that despite C.R.S. § 18-8-703 individuals are often coached to file charges such as domestic violence or obtain restraining orders without factual basis. Prosecutors frequently suborn witnesses in plea bargains in order to obtain convictions. And despite the language in the comments for C.R.S. § 18-8-707 suggesting

“The drafters of the model penal code from which former § 18-8-605 derived considered subornation of perjury to be a superfluous restatement of accomplice liability and proposed that persons accused of conduct amounting to subornation of perjury be prosecuted under the accomplice and solicitation statutes.”

no penalty, definition, or crime is presently associated with subornation of perjury in the C.R.S.

As no legal system can persist where the practitioners are free to encourage and suggest perjury, and false allegations, the following statute regarding subornation of perjury is proposed:

(1) Any person who presents a witness in any official proceeding knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the witness intends to commit perjury thereby engages in the subornation of perjury.

(2) Any person who helps or suggests that a witness commit perjury or false swearing

I couldn’t agree more with those proposed revisions and hope THIS case will bring some attention.   And I’ll post in a separate post about this site ASAP.

Looks like I’ll be filing another Bar complaint.