Tameira Hollander, MD Accuses Blogger of Defamation via Weblink - Has Website Torn Down

Innocent Third Party Accused of Defamation and Has Non-Affiliated Website Torn Down

In November, 2007, Christine Baker (who works in credit rating) included in the left sidebar of her CreditSuit.org blog, a link to http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com stating that the website was a "... great site and fantastic example of how everybody should DOCUMENT and PUBLICIZE their complaints!"

What followed almost boggles the imagination.

She was shortly thereafter beset upon by Irving G. Johnson, lawyer for Dr. Tameira Lee Hollander, MD, of Littleton, Colorado (http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/127153/CO/Littleton/Hollander), demanding that she immediately remove his client's name from her websites, a rather confusing demand, given that she had not posted anything about the good doctor, nor her name.

Ms. Baker writes that Irving G. Johnson then wrote her the following, without providing a valid return address or other contact:

"Ms. Baker, I am Dr. Hollander’s attorney. I gather you like to “mix it up” and involve yourself in “causes”. The Baileys decided to remove all their defamation from the web because this has gone on long enough. The truth is Dr. Hollander is an exceptional physician who has been maligned for a year and a half. I will gladly serve you if you don’t remove her name from your website. I’m sure I can keep you fully entertained if that is what you prefer. Just let me know.".

According to Ms. Baker, Irving G. Johnson submitted this "request" over a month after he filed the lawsuit and obtained the Temporary Restraining Order ordering the removal of CreditSuit.org (http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/3-2-09--Hollander-OppositionVacate-TRO_ReconsiderationContempt-pub-14584.pdf), five days later issuing the summons and writing the letter to have Christine served.

Christine Baker asserts that:

" 1. I have never had ANY defamatory statement about Dr. Tameira Hollander at any of my websites.
2. While I’m NOT familiar with Colorado law, I assume it requires notice of defamatory statements prior to filing a defamation suit.
3. This lawsuit is a harassment suit.
4. Attorney Irving G. Johnson filed this suit because he expected me to be AFRAID of him and because Doctor Tameira Hollander has deep pockets."

For the complete story, see:
http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news/factual-summary

It seems that she is guilty of nothing more than having provided a link in a blog on her website to another website for the purpose of referencing certain examples of methodologies contained in that website. As that other website contains(ed) information perhaps not positive regarding the good doctor, Christine has had legal action initiated against her, including the termination of her website, CreditSuit.org.

This is akin to someone linking to a website to provide their readers with tools from that website, and being accused of libel because that other website (possibly) contains a libelous statement. If a blog such as DrSmith.blogspot.com or DrSmith.wordpress.com contained libel and one were to link to blogspot.com or wordpress.com, would it thus hold that their website should be torn down?

With her website down, Ms. Baker's sole source of income was interrupted, placing her in a poor position to challenge the unwarranted attack on her.

This is incredulous, to say the least.

BTW, Christine Baker is an

BTW, Christine Baker is an advocate for debtor's rights in dealing with credit granters and collection agencies. If anyone is encountering particular difficulty in dealing with a creditor or its agent, Christine may be contacted via her website at:

http://creditsuit.org

(Yes, this is the website that the good Dr. Tameira Hollander had torn down, putting Christine, a single mother, out of work. It has very recently been resurrected.)

Christine has also written a nice reference to RateMDs, citing the "Wall of Shame" at http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news/2009/05/ratemd-com-tameira-hollander-litigation-post-and-listing-of-doctors-requiring-gag-contract/.

Great thread

Great thread Mic,
thanks~

Odd isn't it that -Dr. Hollander misses the fact that her lawsuit has developed into more negative publicity of her professional services, than the defamation she originally complained of?

Her lawyer will look for other fish to fry once all the blood has been drained from this one ..

Imalert wrote: Odd isn't

Imalert wrote:

Odd isn't it that -Dr. Hollander misses the fact that her lawsuit has developed into more negative publicity of her professional services, than the defamation she originally complained of?

Her lawyer will look for other fish to fry once all the blood has been drained from this one ..

Good points, Alert! Christine has mentioned on her website that she believes it is the lawyer who may be the driving force behind the lawsuit.

In terms of negative publicity the good doctor can't be doing herself any good. Every post, every mention of this situation on a website, a blog, some forum entry somewhere just illuminates the persecution being heaped upon Christine. I do wonder, too, how critical good marketing is to Dr. Hollander. Take a look at her website, specifically her "About" webpage, at http://www.tameiralhollandermd.com/index.php?p=about. Notice the name of the office which is her "Current Practice". Clicking on that, and further, clicking on the "Our Providers" link, takes one to http://arapahoeinternalmedicine.com/index.php?p=providers, where the medical providers and their brief bios are portrayed, save for the good Dr. Hollander for some reason.

In all fairness, these two websites were updated in respect of:

Arapahoe Internal Medicine: November 2, 2007
Tameira L. Hollander: November 18, 2008

Arapahoe registered its website through its agent/webhost (SRS Plus). Hollander privately registered her website. Hollander transferred hosting of her website to Arapahoe's webhost. Thus, we have one web host company for both affililated clients. When Hollander updated her website (16 days after Arapahoe did), why did she not suggest to Arapahoe (or to SRS Plus to ask Arapahoe for appropriate instruction) to update the Arapahoe website to reflect Hollander as a Arapahoe partner?

This may seem very picky, but if someone in business conscious of their Internet WWW presence has the mind to go after someone who did nothing more than like to a negative website, why wouldn't they be cognizant of their partnership in their professional practice not being reflected by the partnership for some nine or ten months (to September, 2008, when Christine's website was taken down)?

Following are the details from SRS Plus's WHOIS server showing the two websites' registrations:

TAMEIRA L. HOLLAND, MD

http://www.tameiralhollandermd.com/index.php?p=about

Domain Name: TAMEIRALHOLLANDERMD.COM
Registrar: TLDS, LLC DBA SRSPLUS
Whois Server: whois.srsplus.com
Referral URL: http://www.srsplus.com
Name Server: NS1.ARBISINC.COM
Name Server: NS2.ARBISINC.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 18-nov-2008
Creation Date: 20-nov-2007
Expiration Date: 20-nov-2009

Registrant:
Rick Bauman (4a6x2bhm3sc@private[email protected])
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc.
ATTN: tameiralhollandermd.com
c/o SRSPlus Private Registration
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
570-708-8760

Administrative, Technical, Billing Contact:
Rick Bauman ([email protected])
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc
ATTN: tameiralhollandermd.com
c/o SRSPlus Private Registration
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
570-708-8760

Record created on Nov 20 2007.
Record expires on Nov 20 2009.

Domain servers:
ns1.arbisinc.com
ns2.arbisinc.com

Domain Service Provider:
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc.
3035504694

www.ARBISinc.com

ARAPAHOE INTERNAL MEDICINE

http://arapahoeinternalmedicine.com

Domain Name: ARAPAHOEINTERNALMEDICINE.COM
Registrar: TLDS, LLC DBA SRSPLUS
Whois Server: whois.srsplus.com
Referral URL: http://www.srsplus.com
Name Server: NS1.ARBISINC.COM
Name Server: NS2.ARBISINC.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 02-nov-2007
Creation Date: 02-nov-2007
Expiration Date: 02-nov-2010

Registrant:
Rick Bauman ([email protected])
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc.
796 Ridgemont Circle
Highlands Ranch, 80126
US
3035504694

Administrative, Technical, Billing Contact:
Rick Bauman ([email protected])
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc.
796 Ridgemont Circle
Highlands Ranch, 80126
US
3035504694

Record created on Nov 2 2007.
Record expires on Nov 2 2010.

Domain servers:
ns1.arbisinc.com
ns2.arbisinc.com

Domain Service Provider:
ARBIS Internet Solutions, inc.
3035504694

www.ARBISinc.com

ChristineBaker wrote: I

ChristineBaker wrote:

I have no idea what the standards are, but my next step is to file a published complaint with whoever licenses her. And if anyone here knows who that is and how to best accomplish it, please let me know.

Christine,

Welcome to the forum!

RateMDs has a rating for Dr. Tameira Hollander at http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/127153/CO/Littleton/Hollander. On her rating page, there is a link, "State medical board record" which will take you to her licensing authority, which I believe to be the Colorado Board of Registrations.

She is also licensed in Michigan State and her license status can be found at http://www.ratemds.com/checkStateBoard.jsp?sid=23&lname=Hollander&fname=T . She has two registrations with Michigan, specifying addresses in Boulder, CO 80305 and Neenah, WI 54956, respectively.

One or two participants here have or may be in the process of filing complaints with state medical boards and could possibly convey the benefit of their experience.

(I will correct your personal information in the opening commentary.)

If you are concerned about

If you are concerned about "almost" having a heart attack and killing you, I would suggest you mention to your PCP your symptoms, so that aa adenosine (or treadmill) stress test be performed. Either of those would show reversible ischemia that would have caused your symptoms.

If you've never been checked out, and if you are under a tremendous amount of stress, Reflux disease (GERD)/or any other ulcerating gastrointestinal disease can mimic the symptoms of cardiac chest pain.

Good luck with your suit.

Harleyman, thanks for the

Harleyman, thanks for the info. I suppose a PCP is a "primary care physician." Since this is a site about doctors, one can assume that the people posting here HAVE doctors. And I'm the notable exception.

I also didn't have any cardiac chest pain. My arm hurt like hell. At first the left arm, the next day the right arm.

I'm one of the many millions of uninsured. I'm 50 years old and I live in the AZ high desert about 60 miles from the nearest hospital in Kingman. There are no jobs here (I work online, self-employed) and my neighbors are mostly retirees and disabled people.

A few years ago I signed up for a Blue Cross plan with a $5,000 annual deductible. I paid 179/month. After a little over a year, I was at over 220/month and I finally canceled last year. I don't have $5k for medical expenses just like I don't have $7,500 for a lawyer. Wish I hadn't wasted a few thousand on the insurance payments.

And after everything I hear about doctors and hospitals from my neighbors, what I read about meds and especially after my doctor Hollander experience (I'm convinced the allegations against her are true), I'd have to be really sick to want to see a doctor. There's a lot of GREAT stuff that can be done - for the wealthy.

The medical treatment for the masses is designed to make people ill, to cause disease, to sell medications. I've never taken a flu shot and I never will. I will get a tetanus shot, it's been over 10 years and hopefully I can find some walk-in clinic in Kingman for it without paying a fortune.

I'm all for preventive medicine, tests and early diagnosis. But since I can't afford treatment, it's pointless.

I also know a woman who actually had a heart attack while working on her litigation. She was in her 20s, athletic, got no warning whatsoever. She was airlifted to Phoenix and they saved her life. Of course she dismissed her lawsuit. She had kids to take care of.

Mic, thanks much for your info too!

I actually had looked at the Hollander listing here, don't know how I missed that link to the state medical board. And I just saw the link to my litigation, nice!

I really wish people would make their complaints PUBLIC. And I'll definitely try to get my complaint done this week.

"The medical treatment for

"The medical treatment for the masses is designed to make people ill, to cause disease, to sell medications".

Well, this is certainly news to me....! I had no idea...

Whatever happened to this

Whatever happened to this link?
http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com

It just goes to a Godaddy ad for selling the original link
Was it a website forum to discuss ongoing litigation?

Imalert wrote: Whatever

Imalert wrote:

Whatever happened to this link?
http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com

It just goes to a Godaddy ad for selling the original link
Was it a website forum to discuss ongoing litigation?

In the same Temporary Restraining Order made against Christine, John. Bailey, the owner of the website was ordered to pull down the site, claiming that it contained libelous content. I believe the site chronicled the treatment of John's wife, Barbara Bailey, a (former) patient of Dr. Hollander.

Web hosts who double as domain registrars, taking possession of a domain following cancellation prior to expiration of a name will often offer the domain name for sale, given that there may be many links to the domain name in Google and other websites. This can be opportunistic for anyone promoting a product or service, or as so often seems to happen, porn.

While there may have been merit in having the content at tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com yanked, including the domain name itself, going after Christine for merely referencing it by virtue of a link to a particular non-libelous commentary contained within it, is very questionable.

Is my historical reference to a domain name cause to cite my for libel? I think not.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Imalert wrote:

Whatever happened to this link?
http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com

It just goes to a Godaddy ad for selling the original link
Was it a website forum to discuss ongoing litigation?

In the same Temporary Restraining Order made against Christine, Mr. Bailey, the owner of the website was ordered to pull down the site, claiming that it contained libelous content. I believe the site chronicled the treatment of a patient of Dr. Hollander by the patient's husband.

Web hosts who double as domain registrars, taking possession of a domain following cancellation prior to expiration of a name will often offer the domain name for sale, given that there may be many links to the domain name in Google and other websites. This can be opportunistic for anyone promoting a product or service, or as so often seems to happen, porn.

While there may have been merit in having the content at tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com yanked, including the domain name itself, going after Christine for merely referencing it by virtue of a link to a particular non-libelous commentary contained within it, is very questionable.

Is my historical reference to a domain name cause to cite my for libel? I think not.

Thx Mic - I figured that was what happened. Nobody would buy that domain anyway-
That dr.'s allegations are delusional at best --- and the attorney is just feeding her delusion - for a price.
After this is thrown out, Christine should be able to retrieve all legal costs and win a countersuit for harrassment.

Imalert wrote: Thx Mic - I

Imalert wrote:

Thx Mic - I figured that was what happened. Nobody would buy that domain anyway-
That dr.'s allegations are delusional at best --- and the attorney is just feeding her delusion - for a price.
After this is thrown out, Christine should be able to retrieve all legal costs and win a countersuit for harrassment.

Yes, one would think she'd be able to recover her costs fully, as well as win a countersuit, with damages for interference in commerce as well as punitive damages for harassment. It appears that Dr. Hollander's attorneys are playing the money game, expecting that Christine cannot answer to the allegations and fully defend herself, much less launch a countersuit.

They apparently went further than simply demanding that a simple link be removed from a webpage on her website, forcing Christin's web host to pull CreditSuit.org in its entirety. Nothing like yanking someone's bread and butter to stomp on their ability to defend themselves!

I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding the scenario of Dr. Hollander's attorneys deluding her, and perhaps they should be named in a countersuit (and may well have been). I don't know how things work with the Colorado Bar, but had this happened in my neck of the woods, the lawyer would very likely find himself answering to the Law Society for unprofessional conduct. Simply threatening to "entertain" a potential litigant is sufficient to bring about a hearing.

I expect that Dr. Hollander's attorneys would be alleging that Christine committed libel by linking to a libelous source which is ridiculous as she was clearly linking to a specific commentary within the website, and secondly, and further into the Twilight Zone of legal nonsense, they may be trying to establish that mere mention of the website's name constituted libel.

Well, the attorneys can add me to their list of libelous writers if they wish. Good luck! Jurisdictional matters would be a nightmare, not to mention the lack of merit in their argument.

While the matter of "links" and "linking" has been ruled upon by various courts, that's been more to the point of authority to do so. I haven't seen anything in law in the US or elsewhere pertaining to the form or content of a domain name, short of a brief comment by a judge in a case pertaining to obscenity, which does not apply here. I don't think this is anything more, legally, than some attorney trying to impress a client, and blowing a lot of smoke. Unfortunately, he has chosen to pick on someone who, like many of us, does not possess the resources to mount a vigorous defence.

However, that may change. Smiling

This could be a good case for an attorney looking to further establish their name and credentials.

Mic I hate to question your

Mic I hate to question your legal expertice, but isn't it possible that the website teardown and order against christine actually have merit?... Isn't Christine's story, while horrible, still just one side of the story?

What is not posted (and maybe it is, as I havn't looked) is the ruling/reasoning behind the teardown and restraining order?...That could shead some light perhaps. Otherwise aren't you just making assumptions without the whole picture?

harleyman-2 wrote: Mic I

harleyman-2 wrote:

Mic I hate to question your legal expertice, but isn't it possible that the website teardown and order against christine actually have merit?... Isn't Christine's story, while horrible, still just one side of the story?

What is not posted (and maybe it is, as I havn't looked) is the ruling/reasoning behind the teardown and restraining order?...That could shead some light perhaps. Otherwise aren't you just making assumptions without the whole picture?

Harley, by virtue of this and other posts on this thread, I and several others have linked to http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com for the purpose of highlighting the issue. I have also linked to http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news/factual-summary for the same reason. Should anyone be able to accuse RateMDsJohn of anything and have RateMDs.com torn down for this action? Of course not. Christine Baker linked to the former site for the stated purpose of highlighted an example of good documentation.

That does not make her guilty of libel any more than someone referring to a news source, book, or other source of (alleged) libel and being named as a guilty party.

As for "sides", Dr. Hollander has laid out her case, and it is clearly without merit. She has made her accusations through the TRO and Writ of Summons, and they are meritless, given the evidence. Her lawyer seems to be attempting to establish a tried and failed legal premise for libel.

The TRO and other court documents have been posted. Dr. Hollander is effectively accusing Christine Baker of libel, trying to establish vicarious liability through reference to libelous material.

Lawyers attempted to establish a precedent in many cases in the early part of the decade, and failed. Had they succeeded, any link to a website would have the potential of causing a party linking to another website of guilty of the same accusation claimed against the first defendant. Just imagine referencing a website that hosts blogs and finding yourself third party to a lawsuit for something you hadn't written. Compound that with a situation in which the offending material is written after your reference was made.

The judge erroneously ordered Christine Baker to "remove all references" to Dr. Hollander. In no post, blog, link, or otherwise did Christine mention or even refer to Dr. Hollander. She referred to a website which contained methodology on documenting legal matters, a useful tool for Christine's clients who subscribe to CreditSuit.org. Hollander's lawyer used the TRO to throw a legal scare into Christine's web host.

Harley, I read Christine's website, her story, that of Dr. Hollander, read the court documents and Hollander's accusations prior to starting this thread. If Christine Baker had done anything wrong, I would also have been legally in the wrong simply for mentioning tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com in public. The courts have long held that domain names cannot be libel outside of directly linked and relevant content (read website at the domain location).

I haven't gone to or read

I haven't gone to or read any links regarding the above...Has this case been settled or is it ongoing?

harleyman-2 wrote: I

harleyman-2 wrote:

I haven't gone to or read any links regarding the above...Has this case been settled or is it ongoing?

Harley, it's ongoing. If I've read matters correctly, Christine has filed her response to the lawsuit with a defence and a counter suit for harassment.

I believe she is presently seeking to retain counsel in the matter.

I haven't read the countersuit, but I suspect it may seek to include Irving G. Johnson as a co-defendant. I see him as the source of the harassment, but I can't know what instructions he received from his client.

You can find a chronology of the legal discourse here:

http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14435.html (to March 30, 2009)
http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news (March 31, 2009 to present)

So, if it's ongoing, then

So, if it's ongoing, then it is speculation that person above is correct? Or can one speculate the doctor's version may be correct, or at least valid in order for the court to take any type of action?

If all the court documents are available for review, then what are you reading about the courts decision to take down the website +/- go after the above?...Keep in mind I'm only interested in 3rd party decisions, not opinions by one side or the other.

I have to admit, you may have already addressed this. But I haven't gotten into reading all the detail....just looking for simple answers..

harleyman-2 wrote: So, if

harleyman-2 wrote:

So, if it's ongoing, then it is speculation that person above is correct? Or can one speculate the doctor's version may be correct, or at least valid in order for the court to take any type of action?

If all the court documents are available for review, then what are you reading about the courts decision to take down the website +/- go after the above?...Keep in mind I'm only interested in 3rd party decisions, not opinions by one side or the other.

I have to admit, you may have already addressed this. But I haven't gotten into reading all the detail....just looking for simple answers..

There has been NO libel made on Christine Baker's website. The old site, which is the object of the allegation shows no more libel (which is none) than this:

" http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com "

She is accused of having libeled Dr. Tameira Hollander simply by publishing the website name.

That is it in totality. That is everything the doctor has had to say in initiating the lawsuit. I don't need to believe Christine Baker or anyone else. The court documents speak for themselves.

The court's judgment is contained in the Temporary Restraining Order to Christine Baker and her web host, stating that she is to remove "all references to Tameira Hollander". The TRO expired ten days after issuance, twenty or twenty-five days before she was served.

The total libel that Christine Baker committed, I just committed in this post by linking to the website with the "libelous name", which libel is slim, nicht, nada, zilch. If you feel you are missing something, you are. The existence of any substantial allegation, never mind, evidence, by Dr. Hollander.

Again, the Dr. is

Again, the Dr. is misinformed by her
attorney- and he has brought a frivilous
lawsuit which should be reported to the
Bar Assoc. where he is a member.

What is confusing is - why the complaint was filed against Christine instead of a lawsuit brought against the original publisher of the "almostkilledmywife" blogger??

If I were Christine I would send this whole argument to CNN as public information regarding defamation
and the right to reference online information.

Regarding the "link" argument Let's say that online CNN posted an interview with Christine- about this
whole mess.

In the course of that interview CNN posted the
link to the "nearlykilledmywife" blog
Because the general public then links to
that blog - would NOT give rise to an allegation of defamation by CNN.
Nor would it give an attorney the
right to sue CNN for providing that link

Think about it............

Imalert wrote: What is

Imalert wrote:

What is confusing is - why the complaint was filed against Christine instead of a lawsuit brought against the original publisher of the "almostkilledmywife" blogger??

Actually, Christine is a co-defendant with John (the author of the "almost killed my wife" website) and Barbara Bailey.

I haven't read the

I haven't read the countersuit, but I suspect it may seek to include Irving G. Johnson as a co-defendant. I see him as the source of the harassment, but I can't know what instructions he received from his client.

----------

Not sure what the state laws are where she is, but here he would have thirty days to drop his suit before getting smacked with frivolous lawsuit, along with his client.

DieChristineDie wrote: I

DieChristineDie wrote:

I have nothing to do with him. Honestly what I said is very harsh. And I don't actually wish Christine death. It just angers me to no end the dishonest practices that Christine utilizes to attack my company. And sorry if I don't feel compassion in a situation where karma finally bites her in the ass.

"Harsh" might be one way of putting it, though I think I'd opt for something stronger. If you don't wish Christine death, you do have an odd way of conveying your sentiments. Might I remind you that your username is somewhat suggest of wishing here something less than the best of health?

What practices, more particularly on this forum, has Christine utilized to attack your company?

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
DieChristineDie wrote:

I have nothing to do with him. Honestly what I said is very harsh. And I don't actually wish Christine death. It just angers me to no end the dishonest practices that Christine utilizes to attack my company. And sorry if I don't feel compassion in a situation where karma finally bites her in the ass.

"Harsh" might be one way of putting it, though I think I'd opt for something stronger. If you don't wish Christine death, you do have an odd way of conveying your sentiments. Might I remind you that your username is somewhat suggest of wishing here something less than the best of health?

What practices, more particularly on this forum, has Christine utilized to attack your company?

On this forum none. But her whole website is dedicated to utilizing dishonest means of getting out of your debts. Her site didn't encourage people to pay back what they owe in an affordable manner but to use loopholes in the system to try to find a way out of having to pay back your debts at all. Sorry I don't feel bad for scumbags like her at all. And she is the one posting about how she got a gun and whining about how all this stress is going to kill her. Give me a break all the stress is from her own doing. I don't give a **** about her problems there are people in this world who have actual obstacles in life this whole thing is a joke.

DieChristineDie wrote: On

DieChristineDie wrote:

On this forum none. But her whole website is dedicated to utilizing dishonest means of getting out of your debts. Her site didn't encourage people to pay back what they owe in an affordable manner but to use loopholes in the system to try to find a way out of having to pay back your debts at all. Sorry I don't feel bad for scumbags like her at all. And she is the one posting about how she got a gun and whining about how all this stress is going to kill her. Give me a break all the stress is from her own doing. I don't give a **** about her problems there are people in this world who have actual obstacles in life this whole thing is a joke.

Well, I think I should tell you that this forum is about discussing the medical profession and rating physicians and surgeons. Christine has posted here regarding one such physician.

I'm going to take a wild guess and venture that you operate a debt collection company. That may not make you on some forums. I could probably tell a story or two of clients who had failed to respond to a civil lawsuit in proper form, resulting in judgment on a debt previously paid, resulting in garnishment of their accounts, but that would be inappropriate on this forum and certainly off topic. Regardless of the merits of a legal issue, debtors are entitled to defend themselves against claims of a legal nature availing themselves of every legal mechanism, as well as engaging the services of advocates.

I am sure that there are forums dedicated to the business of credit granting and debt collection where your comments would likely be better acknowledged and appreciated.

On the other hand, should you have concerns about the politics or practices of medicine, feel free to lurk and if so inclined, post your two bits regarding health care.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
DieChristineDie wrote:

On this forum none. But her whole website is dedicated to utilizing dishonest means of getting out of your debts. Her site didn't encourage people to pay back what they owe in an affordable manner but to use loopholes in the system to try to find a way out of having to pay back your debts at all. Sorry I don't feel bad for scumbags like her at all. And she is the one posting about how she got a gun and whining about how all this stress is going to kill her. Give me a break all the stress is from her own doing. I don't give a **** about her problems there are people in this world who have actual obstacles in life this whole thing is a joke.

Well, I think I should tell you that this forum is about discussing the medical profession and rating physicians and surgeons. Christine has posted here regarding one such physician.

I'm going to take a wild guess and venture that you operate a debt collection company. That may not make you on some forums. I could probably tell a story or two of clients who had failed to respond to a civil lawsuit in proper form, resulting in judgment on a debt previously paid, resulting in garnishment of their accounts, but that would be inappropriate on this forum and certainly off topic. Regardless of the merits of a legal issue, debtors are entitled to defend themselves against claims of a legal nature availing themselves of every legal mechanism, as well as engaging the services of advocates.

I am sure that there are forums dedicated to the business of credit granting and debt collection where your comments would likely be better acknowledged and appreciated.

On the other hand, should you have concerns about the politics or practices of medicine, feel free to lurk and if so inclined, post your two bits regarding health care.

Yea I came across the site through a cross reference of her name in google. I can't really defend my post or the username I used as it is the source of pure anger towards her. I can say that if someone was actually dying and had some sort of serious disease or problem I would never, ever resort to something like this. Some of you are going to hate on me no matter what which is understandable. I just don't really feel that her issues are actually life threatening and find it to be a joke when people whine in the manner that she has. I get that this isn't the place for this kind of debate.

"I'm also very proud to have

"I'm also very proud to have defaulted on over $90,000 in credit card debt. And I hope to encourage MILLIONS of (near) judgment-proof people to stop paying their unsecured bank debt -- and save many thousands of lives".

I can't even put into words....Thank you for contributing to my tax burden.

I'm wondering..this new home you're building...Can you please provide food and shelter to those "MILLIONS" so people like me won't have to support them?

ChristineBaker wrote: I'm

ChristineBaker wrote:

I'm guessing that "DieChristineDie" is "Matthew Hilton", the person who has been harassing and threatening me since I put up the Hollander litigation site and who I also named in my counter claims.

[-- After reading the thread again, I'm thinking he might be one of scammers I exposed. Of course he's too afraid to say who he and his company are, like all crooks.]

And, I'm thrilled to see the link posted here that got my CreditSuit.org shut down.

Christine, the posts under the username, "DieChristineDie" appear to have been removed by RateMDsJohn who draws the line at defamatory and threatening posts. In fact, the user registration has been canceled. I expect that "Crazy1" is the same person, though posting in a seemingly more restrained manner.

I had no fear of Dr. Tameira Lee Hollander or her attorney attempting any sort of legal action against me. Lawsuits for libel are much easier to launch in Canada and had their been any merit to Dr. Hollander's claims, I would have thought there would have been some effort directed towards me.

You have documented your actions well and Dr. Hollander, or perhaps more to the point, her attorney, Irving G. Johnson, have been shown by their own documented actions to have been high-handed. At no point have you defamed Dr. Hollander in the public eye, pointing only to her actions.

harleyman-2 wrote: "I'm

harleyman-2 wrote:

"I'm also very proud to have defaulted on over $90,000 in credit card debt. And I hope to encourage MILLIONS of (near) judgment-proof people to stop paying their unsecured bank debt -- and save many thousands of lives".

I can't even put into words....Thank you for contributing to my tax burden.

I'm wondering..this new home you're building...Can you please provide food and shelter to those "MILLIONS" so people like me won't have to support them?

Harley, I think your point might be well taken if Christine was being cavalier about her obligations and merely attempting to "conveniently" avoid payment of her debts.

However, as she has stated on her website and in blogs, the credit card grantors which she is not paying have charged her an excessive amount of interest, outside of the terms of her cardholder agreement. Credit agreements routinely allow the lender to impose penalties directly and through increased interest rates when the cardholder has committed breach of warranty. However, this is not an issue in Christine's case as she has indicated in the same breath as disclosing her refusal to pay the excessive charges. There is nothing enforceable in contract law regarding unwarranted claims, which is exactly what the excessive charges represent.

No action is required on the part of any debtor where a creditor makes claims outside the terms of a contract, other than litigating for damages should the claims result in loss of (credit) reputation.

If your tax burden were to be increased due to non-payment of fraudulent claims by lenders, I would take a closer look at how lenders are making such claims and using them to avail themselves of relief through the taxation system or other government subsidies.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-2 wrote:

"I'm also very proud to have defaulted on over $90,000 in credit card debt. And I hope to encourage MILLIONS of (near) judgment-proof people to stop paying their unsecured bank debt -- and save many thousands of lives".

I can't even put into words....Thank you for contributing to my tax burden.

I'm wondering..this new home you're building...Can you please provide food and shelter to those "MILLIONS" so people like me won't have to support them?

Harley, I think your point might be well taken if Christine was being cavalier about her obligations and merely attempting to "conveniently" avoid payment of her debts.

However, as she has stated on her website and in blogs, the credit card grantors which she is not paying have charged her an excessive amount of interest, outside of the terms of her cardholder agreement. Credit agreements routinely allow the lender to impose penalties directly and through increased interest rates when the cardholder has committed breach of warranty. However, this is not an issue in Christine's case as she has indicated in the same breath as disclosing her refusal to pay the excessive charges. There is nothing enforceable in contract law regarding unwarranted claims, which is exactly what the excessive charges represent.

No action is required on the part of any debtor where a creditor makes claims outside the terms of a contract, other than litigating for damages should the claims result in loss of (credit) reputation.

If your tax burden were to be increased due to non-payment of fraudulent claims by lenders, I would take a closer look at how lenders are making such claims and using them to avail themselves of relief through the taxation system or other government subsidies.

Fine, then at the very least fulfill the obligation to pay back the principle?....Does she profess that at all....And an additional "reasonable" interest rate?...Bank bail-outs are certainly a contributing factor to the woes of our economy (inability for companies to get credit)...Yes I know, mortgage defaults play a bigger role....

IMHO most defaulters are all the same....Living beyond their means with someone elses money.

harleyman-2 wrote: Fine,

harleyman-2 wrote:

Fine, then at the very least fulfill the obligation to pay back the principle?....Does she profess that at all....And an additional "reasonable" interest rate?...Bank bail-outs are certainly a contributing factor to the woes of our economy (inability for companies to get credit)...Yes I know, mortgage defaults play a bigger role....

IMHO most defaulters are all the same....Living beyond their means with someone elses money.

Anyone who began paying off a claimed obligation without first having agreement as to what the claim was and it terms, would be foolish to do so. You can't negotiate an obligation whilst discharging it with those whose actions are clearly demonstrated by their fraudulent claims.

First, the credit grantor must set forth a claim which reflects the agreement already made, after which they have a reasonable, and legally enforceable, expectation of payment.

Have you worked in the credit granting and collections sector? I did, while an articled student There are all sort of reasons for debtors to default on their obligations, most of them representing circumstances well beyond their control, particularly health considerations and layoffs due to cutbacks.

Our views completely

Our views completely contrast.
Good luck to you.

ChristineBaker

ChristineBaker wrote:

Everybody PLEASE watch the FREE 3.5 hour documentary The Money Masters at http://creditfactors.com/resistance/viewforum.php?f=2

The banks create the money and control the governments not only in the US, but also in Canada, Europe and in MOST countries.

I watched an internet doc not-so-recently about this very thing. I know that people in my homeschooling circles were using it as a great starting point for economics.

If I had it all to do over again, I would certainly watch the amount of credit card debt I accumulated. Unfortunately, it IS what it IS for most people, and you have to deal with the here and now, not what you SHOULD have done 10 or 20 years ago.

ChristineBaker wrote: And

ChristineBaker wrote:

And I still don't get notifications of posts here and it seems like every time I have to log in, my password doesn't work and I have to reset it. Very odd.

Christine, if you look just below the opening commentary and above the top post, to the right of "Add new comment | report spam", you should see "Subscribe post". Click on that. If it states, "Unsubscribe post", that means you already are subscribed, and you should review your email address registered with RateMDs.com.

Maybe now I'm subscribed,

Maybe now I'm subscribed, found the subscribe link. I was trying to do that autosubscribe from the profile. And it's odd to have the "subscribe" link in the middle of the thread, but now that I found it, it'll hopefully work. Thanks!

This is the kind of grief

This is the kind of grief nobody ever needs.
I feel your pain.........
I have been unable to find ANY law against posting links to
a website- I will follow this case to see if the opposing
lawyer ever found one. LOL!

Read several of your court documents
One thing struck me - and that is the deal Hollander struck [her words]with the original website author that he would request that you [and any other sites?] delete any posts about her.[not exact wording]
I believe he was under no obligation to act as a middleman on her behalf to instruct you to remove those posts. So I would suspect your refusal was within your rights

However, Hollander did follow up with the RTO when the website author didn't succeed in having you take the postings down -right?

For what reason did the court rule that the RTO invalid?

Guess your next step is to timely file Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment -
Good luck!

Keep your chin up,

Keep your chin up, Christine.

ChristineBaker

ChristineBaker wrote:

ORDER RE: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Relax, Christine. If this court order amounts to anything, it may do nothing more than get our hackles up. By your post, I would expect that you have discharged your legal obligations insofar as RateMDs is concerned. You cannot be held responsible for what I or others write.

Dr. Tameira Hollander's lawyer might wish to refresh himself with US Title 41, Communications Decency Act, Section 230. According to John, the site administrator, RateMDs collects court demands to delete all sorts of material, weekly. Short of anything being libelous or threatening, posted material remains.

Perhaps Dr. Hollander would like to sue me. That would be interesting.

I just went through this

I just went through this thread and unpublished all the posts that Christine Baker had posted concerning Dr. Tameira Hollander, who has apparently obtained some kind of court order that removes Christine's freedom of speech. I suspect it would not stand up in a higher court, but for Christine's sake, I have hidden her posts.

Now, let me take this opportunity to point out that Dr. Tameira Hollander seems to be extremely litigious. I personally would never use her services.

I am also pinning this post to the top of the page so others can learn about the unpleasant behavior of Dr. Hollander.

John

RateMDsJohn wrote: I am

RateMDsJohn wrote:

I am also pinning this post to the top of the page so others can learn about the unpleasant behavior of Dr. Hollander.

John

Sweet!!!

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
RateMDsJohn wrote:

I am also pinning this post to the top of the page so others can learn about the unpleasant behavior of Dr. Hollander.

John

Sweet!!!

WOW, a new sticky

WOW, a new sticky thread.................Hollander, sounds like a fun doc.

Irving G. Johnson needs to

Irving G. Johnson needs to make good the damages to Ms. Baker

Did this person use her name

Did this person use her name on her initial postings?

Is this how she was identified in the lawsuit?

chrisaldridge wrote: Did

chrisaldridge wrote:

Did this person use her name on her post?

Is this how she was identified in the lawsuit?

Christine Baker routinely posts under her real name. The blog entry which she posted was on a website owned by her, and her identity as the website owner as well as her location are not a secret.

Here's an interesting

Here's an interesting development. Dr. Tameira Hollander perhaps liked the domain name (previously "for sale" by GODADDY.COM, INC.) so much, that she bought it.

If Christine Baker committed libel by referring to the website by this domain name, I would expect that I may be doing the same in quoting a domain name registration page containing such.

TAMEIRAHOLLANDER-NEARLYKILLEDMYWIFE.COM SITE INFORMATION
http://www.tameirahollander-nearlykilledmywife.com/ Thumbnail
IP: 68.178.232.100
IP Location: Scottsdale, United States
Website Status: active
Server Type: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

Registrant:
Tameira Hollander
8199 Southpark Lane
#100
Littleton, CO 80120
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: TAMEIRAHOLLANDER-NEARLYKILLEDMYWIFE.COM
Created on: 23-Sep-07
Expires on: 23-Sep-09
Last Updated on: 10-Nov-08

Administrative Contact:
Hollander, Tameira Email Masking

8199 Southpark Lane
#100
Littleton, CO 80120
United States
3037303332 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Hollander, Tameira Email Masking

8199 Southpark Lane
#100
Littleton, CO 80120
United States
3037303332 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS15.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS16.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Here's an interesting development. Dr. Tameira Hollander perhaps liked the domain name (previously "for sale" by GODADDY.COM, INC.) so much, that she bought it.

That's one way to take it out of circulation. I would bet that its not the only URL that she's registered for this purpose.

On Friday, September 4,

On Friday, September 4, 2009, Christine Baker filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14703.html).

Actual Motion for Summary Judgment
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/9-4-09--motion-for-summary-judgment-pub-14704.pdf

Exhibit A - Perjury complaint against Tameira Lee Hollander, made to Carol Chambers, Arapahoe County District Attorney
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/Exh-A--9-4-09--complaint-Arapahoe_DA-pub-14705.pdf

Exhibit B - Perjury complaint against Tameira Lee Hollander, made to Colorado State Medical Board
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/Exh-B--9-4-09--complaint-CO-medical-board-pub-14706.pdf

Exhibit C - Christine Baker's affidavit in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/Exh-C--9-4-09--Affidavit-MotionSummaryJudgment-pub-14707.pdf

In addition, all filings made by Christine in TAMEIRA LEE HOLLANDER, M.D. vs. JOHN W. BAILEY, BARBARA A.B. BAILEY and CHRISTINE BAKER (amended as TAMEIRA LEE HOLLANDER, M.D. vs. CHRISTINE BAKER) may be found at:
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14435.html

Christine may be under a Temporary Restraining Order effectively trampling on her freedom of speech, no one else of this forum has had their rights so restricted. To better understand the vagueness with which Tameira Hollander's attorney, Irving G. Johnson has framed his demand that she "clean up the Internet" regarding her comments pertaining to Hollander, take a simple look at his correspondance to her:

http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14664.html

Christine Baker has no control over this thread. I think he's asking a bit much!

I posted a couple of

I posted a couple of updates:

http://creditsuit.org/credit.php/blog/comments/doctor_tameira_hollander_free_speech_litigation_update/

http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/news/2009/11/finally-back-after-4-months-of-being-censored/

On 11/19/09 we had ANOTHER hearing. While doctor Tameira Hollander FAILED to have all references to her litigation removed from my websites, I'm not allowed to say anything negative about her. I'm still awaiting the written court order with all the details, but I will definitely appeal.

THANKS so much for your help!

It is now crystal clear that my LINK to the Baileys' site was their ONLY issue when they sued me. In the last few weeks I received TWO more legal threats over my publications (credit repair fraud and penny stock fraud) and I either take down ALL my sites or I put up the fight of my life. And right now I'm in NO mood to take ANYTHING down.

There's a LOT to post, I have to scan and upload a bunch of filings and I am in the middle of setting up a NEW site with MULTIPLE blogs for all sorts of "complaints." A bit like Ripoff Report, but WITH documentation.

Since I'm NOT a techie, it's hard for me to design new sites and I have many hours of reading ahead. If anyone would like to help, I'm using WordPress MU.

And maybe eventually I'll have the time to write an ebook about this lawsuit. As I just went through some of the posts to make sure there's nothing negative about doctor Hollander, I can't even believe what I've been through.

Oh, almost forgot, the AG and the CO Medical Board refused to investigate my perjury complaints and the judge ruled that doctor Hollander didn't commit perjury. And I thought perjury was making false statements under oath ... I just don't get it. What IS perjury?

ChristineBaker wrote: Since

ChristineBaker wrote:

Since I'm NOT a techie, it's hard for me to design new sites and I have many hours of reading ahead. If anyone would like to help, I'm using WordPress MU.

Would this be a job or a volunteer gig?

Katherine

ChristineBaker wrote: What

ChristineBaker wrote:

What IS perjury?

I am not sure, but I believe that Perjury is "Fiction and Cute Tricks" under oath. Facts that are misleading and dishonest should be considered perjury and perjury should be considered a crime, but it isn't.

That's what I thought. I

That's what I thought. I just got sued AGAIN -- this time over one of my penny stock fraud documentaries. Obviously, I'm better prepared now, but it just goes to show that they THINK they can get away with these harassment suits.

To answer Katherine's question:

"Would this be a job or a volunteer gig?"

If I had money to PAY people to create websites, I would have had the money to hire a lawyer and most likely, I'd be one of "them."

I am getting close to be able to survive without ANY internet websites, growing food and doing some construction / cleanup work in my neighborhood. If we can just a few hundred dollars/month, we'll be able to live ALMOST stress free.

However, I am fully aware that we are at the verge of losing all freedom, the right to speak our opinion and to say bad things about bad people. The problems are NOT the laws, but the corrupt courts, attorneys and judges and the LACK of legal services for people who DO speak out and DOCUMENT corruption, fraud and scams as I have been doing for over 15 years now.

The first time a subject of my publications went to court to get a restraining order (mid 90s), I didn't even have to be there and in fact knew nothing about it until after the judge ruled that I have the right to free speech.

Now I just got the 2nd ORDER requiring me to delete countless web pages.

I thought I wasn't seeing right when I opened my mail Thanksgiving afternoon.

Is it worth fighting for?

I certainly have noticed that MANY people will only do THEIR job (fighting for THEIR rights and freedom) if they get paid.

I will make ONE LAST EFFORT with the new site and I will ask for support from readers. But you better believe that I will focus on MY survival, I'm not putting building on hold just to get this site up.

Of course a very SMALL percentage of the population always fights for the rights of ALL -- most people are perfectly comfortable working ONLY for themselves and their bank account balance. I'll see how it goes.

And now I'll hang some sheet rock.

ChristineBaker

ChristineBaker wrote:

However, I am fully aware that we are at the verge of losing all freedom, the right to speak our opinion and to say bad things about bad people. The problems are NOT the laws, but the corrupt courts, attorneys and judges and the LACK of legal services for people who DO speak out and DOCUMENT corruption, fraud and scams as I have been doing for over 15 years now.

Christine;

I have to wonder;

You're saying you've been sued many times? You state the system is corrupt because you've been on the losing end despite this country's propensity towards free speech. You're saying your cause is rightous. Yet you've been ruled against many times? Your interpretation of "all freedom, the right to speak our opinion and to say bad things about bad people".... apparently is incorrect as virtually any attorney will tell you.

You aren't losing any freedom. You never had the right to do what you've done, it's just that now someone is looking to enforce the rules against you.

I guess I just don't buy the whole conspiracy mentality regarding court(s), Attorney(s) and judge(s).

I guess time will tell who's right.

harleyman-6 wrote: You

harleyman-6 wrote:

You aren't losing any freedom. You never had the right to do what you've done, it's just that now someone is looking to enforce the rules against you.

What did she do that she never had the right to do?

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

You aren't losing any freedom. You never had the right to do what you've done, it's just that now someone is looking to enforce the rules against you.

What did she do that she never had the right to do?

Whatever it is that all the courts judges and attorney's are ruling against her on....Now and in the past?

harleyman-6

harleyman-6 wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

You aren't losing any freedom. You never had the right to do what you've done, it's just that now someone is looking to enforce the rules against you.

What did she do that she never had the right to do?

Whatever it is that all the courts judges and attorney's are ruling against her on....Now and in the past?

Harley, that's a statement without substance, not like you to make. Having been ruled against does not mean being in the wrong; it may merely mean being unable at the time to mount a sufficient defence. To state otherwise would be an argument against the need for the appeals process.

The rulings made against her in the case at hand were almost incredulous. To have a ruling ordering removal of all websites merely because one site had a link to another website that may have contained a libel is preposterous. It only serves to lower the court to something below that of kangaroo court status. The second order, which followed expiration of the first, was at least sane, demanding only removal of references to the party alleging libel.

Can you imagine a judge ordering the entire RateMDs.com website, ratings database and forums, removed from the Internet, solely over an isolated libel allegation?

I had to wonder if the judge in the case shouldn't have been cited for unlawful possession of a narcotic.

Christine is presently engaged in a fight where the substance of the accusation was quite public (website links), not simply in statement.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

You aren't losing any freedom. You never had the right to do what you've done, it's just that now someone is looking to enforce the rules against you.

What did she do that she never had the right to do?

Whatever it is that all the courts judges and attorney's are ruling against her on....Now and in the past?

Harley, that's a statement without substance, not like you to make. Having been ruled against does not mean being in the wrong; it may merely mean being unable at the time to mount a sufficient defence. To state otherwise would be an argument against the need for the appeals process.

The rulings made against her in the case at hand were almost incredulous. To have a ruling ordering removal of all websites merely because one site had a link to another website that may have contained a libel is preposterous. It only serves to lower the court to something below that of kangaroo court status. The second order, which followed expiration of the first, was at least sane, demanding only removal of references to the party alleging libel.

Can you imagine a judge ordering the entire RateMDs.com website, ratings database and forums, removed from the Internet, solely over an isolated libel allegation?

I had to wonder if the judge in the case shouldn't have been cited for unlawful possession of a narcotic.

Christine is presently engaged in a fight where the substance of the accusation was quite public (website links), not simply in statement.

Thank you Mic, for that consideration (I'm not trying to pick a fight)...very professional Smiling

Perhaps there's more to the case? That's all I'm saying.

I don't think a person is going claim a conspiracy having been ruled against once or twice like you're making it sound, rather I got the feeling that she's been ruled against on more that just this case..per the reference to the legal system.

harleyman-6 wrote: Thank you

harleyman-6 wrote:

Thank you Mic, for that consideration (I'm not trying to pick a fight)...very professional Smiling

Perhaps there's more to the case? That's all I'm saying.

I don't think a person is going claim a conspiracy having been ruled against once or twice like you're making it sound, rather I got the feeling that she's been ruled against on more that just this case..per the reference to the legal system.

There's often more to a case, and until we hear all the arguments we don't often know the full story. In the case of Hollander vs. Baker, however, I see the allegations tied to a simple act of linking to another site, with an attempt to hold Christine Baker responsible for another party's content.

As far as other litigation is concerned, perhaps we should bear in mind that Christine Baker does go about seeking civil justice for clients who believe they have been wronged by credit issuers. These companies do make errors and too often, are slow or reluctant to be accountable for them and to correct their errors. Christine has set out as the underdog for debtors who have run afoul of their credit card issuers for one reason or another. Some might say that she's looking for trouble, others I think would say that she's out to right a few wrongs on behalf of those who have been wronged and do not possess the knowledge or skills to advocate for themselves.

I do wonder if rulings made not in her favour are a reflection of certain truths or more so, financial resources required to fund litigation. How might Erin Brockovich have been regarded had she not prevailed in the end?

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

There's often more to a case, and until we hear all the arguments we don't often know the full story. In the case of Hollander vs. Baker, however, I see the allegations tied to a simple act of linking to another site, with an attempt to hold Christine Baker responsible for another party's content.

As far as other litigation is concerned, perhaps we should bear in mind that Christine Baker does go about seeking civil justice for clients who believe they have been wronged by credit issuers. These companies do make errors and too often, are slow or reluctant to be accountable for them and to correct their errors. Christine has set out as the underdog for debtors who have run afoul of their credit card issuers for one reason or another. Some might say that she's looking for trouble, others I think would say that she's out to right a few wrongs on behalf of those who have been wronged and do not possess the knowledge or skills to advocate for themselves.

I do wonder if rulings made not in her favour are a reflection of certain truths or more so, financial resources required to fund litigation. How might Erin Brockovich have been regarded had she not prevailed in the end?

I don't doubt for a momment that finances play a part in the legal system; My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers. She lost, but doesn't cry about it.

I recall this issue mentioned earlier about Christine and her fight against the credit card industry. I also remember the example of the individual she was fighting for; someone who had rung up $90K in debt. Her advice, which made my skin crawl, was to default and walk away from the debt....

Is there credit card fraud by creditors..perhaps...But this was not an example of fraud. Rather a wreckless spending spree with someone elses money. What I'd like to see, is someone put their energy into teaching and enforcing responsible spending...When I was 19 I got an American Express card. Rang up $500 of charges. My heart dropped when I realized I'd have to pay all that up front. Compared to other CC companies that allow a minimum monthly payment, this card was very different....ANYONE who rings up thousands upon thousands of dollars of CC debt, regardless of the interest rate and then cries foul IMHO doesn't deserve what they thing they deserve.

I guess it's noble that Christine wishes to devote her life to these causes. That's fine...But implying consipracy with the legal system is not the way to recruit a majority of supporters.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote: I

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

I had to wonder if the judge in the case shouldn't have been cited for unlawful possession of a narcotic.

You are funny Mic. Laughing out loud Eye-wink

FAR as this article READS IN

FAR as this article READS IN PART
THE Baker court DECISION is WRONG?

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/defamationinternet.html

The California Supreme Court, overruling a prior decision from the California Court of Appeals, handed down a decision in Barrett et. al. vs. Rosenthal and held:

We conclude that section 230 prohibits “distributor” liability for Internet publications. We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original
source of the statement.

That is worse than Latin!

That is worse than Latin! Sticking out tongue

harleyman-6 wrote: ... She

harleyman-6 wrote:

... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers. She lost, but doesn't cry about it.

I recall this issue mentioned earlier about Christine and her fight against the credit card industry. I also remember the example of the individual she was fighting for; someone who had rung up $90K in debt. Her advice, which made my skin crawl, was to default and walk away from the debt....

Is there credit card fraud by creditors..perhaps...But this was not an example of fraud. Rather a wreckless spending spree with someone elses money. What I'd like to see, is someone put their energy into teaching and enforcing responsible spending...

I guess it's noble that Christine wishes to devote her life to these causes. That's fine...But implying consipracy with the legal system is not the way to recruit a majority of supporters.

The case mentioned by Christine involving some $90K in debt was not about reckless or any other sort of spending. The $90K represented the cumulative service charges claimed by the card issuer, which had remained unpaid by the cardholder as being non-payable.

To bill someone for charges not pursuant to an agreement is evidence of an attempt to extract monies from that party without a legal basis ... "intentional misrepresentation for gain", the very definition of fraud.

When Christine implies "conspiracy", I believe she is referring to the consolidated effort of industry members in dealing with consumer advocates. I don't think that that's really anything new. However, I don't think, either, that it makes it anymore acceptable.

When I was articling, I worked in commercial and consumer credit granting. People do get blacklisted past regulated negative notations on credit reports. Perhaps the US might do well to adopt some of the provisions of Canadian credit and banking law. Here, it's illegal to issue credit where such could increase a person's debt service burden to a level greater than 35% of gross income. Where grantors breach that provision, other than in cases of financing "necessities of life", they will generally lose any claim for principal or interest in a lawsuit for recovery of the funds. These provisions are sometimes referred to as the "Black Bart Rules", and arose out of the massive defaults in the 1930s.

(Note: The regular American Express card requiring that the balance be paid in full within 20 days of statement date is not a credit card. Amex will be the first to tell you that.)

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

The case mentioned by Christine involving some $90K in debt was not about reckless or any other sort of spending. The $90K represented the cumulative service charges claimed by the card issuer, which had remained unpaid by the cardholder as being non-payable..

Ok, but based on what credit balance? That's my point. $90K of service charges doesn't just happen without an excessive credit balance in the first place?

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

(Note: The regular American Express card requiring that the balance be paid in full within 20 days of statement date is not a credit card. Amex will be the first to tell you that.)

Oh no, I absolutely agree. But I did what many others do/did...didn't read the fine print. I just didn't complain, argue or default after the fact...I made good the charges.

"intentional

"intentional misrepresentation for gain", the very definition of fraud.

NO! Really! Laughing out loud

You are funny Mic! Laughing out loud

harleyman-6 wrote: My wife

harleyman-6 wrote:

My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers.

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

harleyman-6

harleyman-6 wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

The case mentioned by Christine involving some $90K in debt was not about reckless or any other sort of spending. The $90K represented the cumulative service charges claimed by the card issuer, which had remained unpaid by the cardholder as being non-payable..

Ok, but based on what credit balance? That's my point. $90K of service charges doesn't just happen without an excessive credit balance in the first place?

These are cumulative disputed charges. It does not require an excessive balance as a basis. When one accounts for some repetitive or occasional item over the years, compounded interest on those items, punitive charges for their non-payment, compounded interest on those, etc., the disputed bill can become quite large. This is sometimes the case where both parties have an unresolved dispute over years, yet continue the operation of the relationship.

abusedemotionally

abusedemotionally wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers.

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

I love my Ratemds friends. Laughing out loud

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers.

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

I love my Ratemds friends. Laughing out loud

Smiling I have to wonder if he was supportive towards her?? Eye-wink Sticking out tongue

abusedemotionally

abusedemotionally wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers.

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

I love my Ratemds friends. Laughing out loud

Smiling I have to wonder if he was supportive towards her?? Eye-wink Sticking out tongue

Can you imagine being married to someone like that??? Sticking out tongue
A "Devil's Advocate"????? Laughing out loud

abusedemotionally

abusedemotionally wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:

My wife went to court over the possession of medical records (about 7000 files). In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records. However she was ruled against in facor of the large commercial organization she contracted under. She got no help (legal counsel or even advice) from her medical association. None of her patients stepped up and offered financial support. She went at it alone and lost to what she perceived as "the good ole boy network"... She was not willing to sink many thousands of her own dollars fighting the system for what is rightfully hers.

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

Quote:

In Florida the law clearly states the professional is the custodian of those records.

Custodian? All hospitals have a Custodian of Records - That does NOT mean the patient cannot have access.

The Custodian must comply with a patient's request for
access to med records or be in violation of the law-
All she had to do was request a date, time to personally INSPECT her records- and while there make whatever copies she wanted.

If they refused to comply to the inspection - she apparently didn't know - there is a legal process available to us all-
Contact the DEPT of HEALTH to obtain a copy of
the records
or......Petition a court to order a SUBPOENA for the records

Let's try to keep this

Let's try to keep this thread on topic. It's about Tameria Hollander suing Christine Baker, and the ongoing case.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Let's try to keep this thread on topic. It's about Tameria Hollander suing Christine Baker, and the ongoing case.

Good point mic
How did it get to be about Harley anyway?

abusedemotionally

abusedemotionally wrote:

Well, your wife mustn't have been entitled to them, then. After all, she was beaten fair and square wasn't she? She certainly didn't need the backing of a lawyer and/or help from her peers, if she had the evidence to prove that she was right.

As I said; She's not complaining. She could pursue appeal out her own pocket. She considered the pros vs cons and let it go.

abusedemotionally wrote: I

abusedemotionally wrote:

Smiling I have to wonder if he was supportive towards her?? Eye-wink Sticking out tongue

Very much so. But I was never caught talking to myself about the procedings either Smiling

Imalert wrote: The Custodian

Imalert wrote:

The Custodian must comply with a patient's request for
access to med records or be in violation of the law-
All she had to do was request a date, time to personally INSPECT her records- and while there make whatever copies she wanted.

If they refused to comply to the inspection - she apparently didn't know - there is a legal process available to us all-
Contact the DEPT of HEALTH to obtain a copy of
the records
or......Petition a court to order a SUBPOENA for the records

Alert;
Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You are offering opinion on law you're unfamiliar with. If you'd like, I'll provide you the link to the actual statute. I don't have it handy as all the work done is from 6 yrs ago.

In Florida the Medical provider is the rightful, legal custodian of medical records when they are created in a medical estabishment outside of a hospital. When a doctor relocates within a certain radius of the previous establishment and provided there is no non-compete clause, that doctor has the right to maintain the records..move them, store them as that doctor sees fit.

This wasn't about patient access in any way.

Imalert

Imalert wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Let's try to keep this thread on topic. It's about Tameria Hollander suing Christine Baker, and the ongoing case.

Good point mic
How did it get to be about Harley anyway?

good point mic...Why is Alert (or AE or Wisher) chiming in on a subject they seem to know little about???

Pehabs John can go back and delete all the extraneous material.

ChristineBaker wrote: That's

ChristineBaker wrote:

That's what I thought. I just got sued AGAIN -- this time over one of my penny stock fraud documentaries. Obviously, I'm better prepared now, but it just goes to show that they THINK they can get away with these harassment suits.

To answer Katherine's question:

"Would this be a job or a volunteer gig?"

If I had money to PAY people to create websites, I would have had the money to hire a lawyer and most likely, I'd be one of "them."

I am getting close to be able to survive without ANY internet websites, growing food and doing some construction / cleanup work in my neighborhood. If we can just a few hundred dollars/month, we'll be able to live ALMOST stress free.

However, I am fully aware that we are at the verge of losing all freedom, the right to speak our opinion and to say bad things about bad people. The problems are NOT the laws, but the corrupt courts, attorneys and judges and the LACK of legal services for people who DO speak out and DOCUMENT corruption, fraud and scams as I have been doing for over 15 years now.

The first time a subject of my publications went to court to get a restraining order (mid 90s), I didn't even have to be there and in fact knew nothing about it until after the judge ruled that I have the right to free speech.

Now I just got the 2nd ORDER requiring me to delete countless web pages.

I thought I wasn't seeing right when I opened my mail Thanksgiving afternoon.

Is it worth fighting for?

I certainly have noticed that MANY people will only do THEIR job (fighting for THEIR rights and freedom) if they get paid.

I will make ONE LAST EFFORT with the new site and I will ask for support from readers. But you better believe that I will focus on MY survival, I'm not putting building on hold just to get this site up.

Of course a very SMALL percentage of the population always fights for the rights of ALL -- most people are perfectly comfortable working ONLY for themselves and their bank account balance. I'll see how it goes.

And now I'll hang some sheet rock.

Generally I'm perfectly happy doing volunteer work, but right now I need a JOB. Doesn't have to be much, just something that will bring in money for Christmas presents this year. I was hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, that was what was in the offing. You didn't need to bite my head off over that.

I hope you get lots of

I hope you get lots of Christmas presents if you think that's so important. Whatever floats your boat -- I'm not paying anybody to fight for THEIR rights and if your 1st Amendment right isn't important, so be it.

Due to the many disruptive posts here I started a blog at http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/40765.

And I want to let John know about a very strange paragraph in Hollander's attorney's PROPOSED order:

"6. Several of Ms. Baker's posts, blogs and/or comments were thereafter republished by other users of the web site, for example "John," and these were done with. knowledge of this litigation and of this Court's previous Temporary Restraining Order."

I don't know if he's on crack or what his deal is, but I will oppose the order and I'm already planning my appeal of the Kangaroo Court order.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

The case mentioned by Christine involving some $90K in debt was not about reckless or any other sort of spending. The $90K represented the cumulative service charges claimed by the card issuer, which had remained unpaid by the cardholder as being non-payable..

Ok, but based on what credit balance? That's my point. $90K of service charges doesn't just happen without an excessive credit balance in the first place?

These are cumulative disputed charges. It does not require an excessive balance as a basis. When one accounts for some repetitive or occasional item over the years, compounded interest on those items, punitive charges for their non-payment, compounded interest on those, etc., the disputed bill can become quite large. This is sometimes the case where both parties have an unresolved dispute over years, yet continue the operation of the relationship.

Regardless of these unwarranted interest charges, I would think that a significant amount of money would remain owed here.

CORRECT?

$ 20,000 ?

$ 35,000 ?

Whatever. A sack full of money still owing.

If someone owed me this much money, and then decided not to pay /walk away from this very sizeable debt, I think I'd be more than a little pissed off.

chrisaldridge

chrisaldridge wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

These are cumulative disputed charges. It does not require an excessive balance as a basis. When one accounts for some repetitive or occasional item over the years, compounded interest on those items, punitive charges for their non-payment, compounded interest on those, etc., the disputed bill can become quite large. This is sometimes the case where both parties have an unresolved dispute over years, yet continue the operation of the relationship.

Regardless of these unwarranted interest charges, I would think that a significant amount of money would remain owed here.

CORRECT?

$ 20,000 ?

$ 35,000 ?

Whatever. A sack full of money still owing.

If someone owed me this much money, and then decided not to pay /walk away from this very sizeable debt, I think I'd be more than a little pissed off.

Chris, it is possible to have a series of accumulating service charges being charged and disputed on an account over a long period of time, associated with high balances. With charges on charges, penalties, and charges and interest on those, etc., over a sufficient period of time, they can become quite sufficient. Where the lender is not interested in addressing errors on their part, once the debtor has satisfied that portion due by them, the account may not be interested in extending further credit, leaving a balance which consists of nothing but disputed amounts. It simply takes a good period of time with a lender who continues the account while failing to address the debtor's claims.

ChristineBaker wrote: I hope

ChristineBaker wrote:

I hope you get lots of Christmas presents if you think that's so important. Whatever floats your boat -- I'm not paying anybody to fight for THEIR rights and if your 1st Amendment right isn't important, so be it.

I didn't say I wanted to get presents I said I wanted to give them.

ChristineBaker wrote:

Due to the many disruptive posts here I started a blog at http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/40765.

And I want to let John know about a very strange paragraph in Hollander's attorney's PROPOSED order:

"6. Several of Ms. Baker's posts, blogs and/or comments were thereafter republished by other users of the web site, for example "John," and these were done with. knowledge of this litigation and of this Court's previous Temporary Restraining Order."

What did he propose to do about it?

Quote:

I don't know if he's on crack or what his deal is, but I will oppose the order and I'm already planning my appeal of the Kangaroo Court order.

ChristineBaker wrote: I hope

ChristineBaker wrote:

I hope you get lots of Christmas presents if you think that's so important. Whatever floats your boat -- I'm not paying anybody to fight for THEIR rights and if your 1st Amendment right isn't important, so be it.

I hope that teach you Katherine Eye-wink I think...Christine thinks her fight is more improtant than you giving presents to your kids.

Christine tone down the rhetoric. If you've chose to sacrifice your life for a crusade then so be it. Don't expect others to fall in line like you're some Pied Piper. Freedom of speech is not infinite.

So if 90K is only about the compounding penalties and interest...can someone please answer for me what the initial default sum was and whether defaulting on that sum was appropriate?

harleyman-6

harleyman-6 wrote:
ChristineBaker wrote:

I hope you get lots of Christmas presents if you think that's so important. Whatever floats your boat -- I'm not paying anybody to fight for THEIR rights and if your 1st Amendment right isn't important, so be it.

I hope that teach you Katherine Eye-wink I think...Christine thinks her fight is more improtant than you giving presents to your kids.

Christine tone down the rhetoric. If you've chose to sacrifice your life for a crusade then so be it. Don't expect others to fall in line like you're some Pied Piper.

So if 90K is only about the compounding penalties and interest...can someone please answer for me what the initial default sum was?

::shrugs:: Put yourself in Christine's shoes. Her life is being taken away from her because she linked her site to the site of one of Hollander's disgruntled clients. A certain amount of blind passion can be allowed for.

I've got some other commitments at the moment. Once I've finished with them, probably in January, I'll help her with her website.

P.S. I don't have kids. I'm not even married.

Katherine wrote: ::shrugs::

Katherine wrote:

::shrugs:: Put yourself in Christine's shoes. Her life is being taken away from her because she linked her site to the site of one of Hollander's disgruntled clients.

I'll admit I must have missed something here...How is "her life being taken away"?

What exactly has she lost? She picked this battle willingly. She professes to be a crusader for freedom of speech. If she wasn't prepared to have her life taken away from her, she shouldn't have picked the fight?

harleyman-6

harleyman-6 wrote:
Katherine wrote:

::shrugs:: Put yourself in Christine's shoes. Her life is being taken away from her because she linked her site to the site of one of Hollander's disgruntled clients.

I'll admit I must have missed something here...How is "her life being taken away"?

What exactly has she lost? She picked this battle willingly. She professes to be a crusader for freedom of speech. If she wasn't prepared to have her life taken away from her, she shouldn't have picked the fight?

Her site was forced offline for a year. That was her primary source of income right there. Its back up now, but a year of downtime is an eternity in the virtual world.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
harleyman-6 wrote:
Katherine wrote:

::shrugs:: Put yourself in Christine's shoes. Her life is being taken away from her because she linked her site to the site of one of Hollander's disgruntled clients.

I'll admit I must have missed something here...How is "her life being taken away"?

What exactly has she lost? She picked this battle willingly. She professes to be a crusader for freedom of speech. If she wasn't prepared to have her life taken away from her, she shouldn't have picked the fight?

Her site was forced offline for a year. That was her primary source of income right there. Its back up now, but a year of downtime is an eternity in the virtual world.

Haven't gone to her site. How does it generate income? Does she sell something?

harleyman-6 wrote: Haven't

harleyman-6 wrote:

Haven't gone to her site. How does it generate income? Does she sell something?

Harley, Christine Baker is a consultant to credit card holders and advocate for those finding themselves in dispute with the card grantors. Her website is a primary source of clients.

If you haven't been to her website, the address of which has been posted, how can you comment on the allegations Tameira Hollander has made against Christine?

harleyman-6 wrote: What

harleyman-6 wrote:

What exactly has she lost? She picked this battle willingly. She professes to be a crusader for freedom of speech. If she wasn't prepared to have her life taken away from her, she shouldn't have picked the fight?

Christine hardly picked any battle, willingly or otherwise. She made a link on her website to another containing an informative section, germane to her site, and suddenly found her website being pulled, accusing her by association, with furthering a wrong (allegedly) committed on the other website.

If I include a link on a website to another website, and that other website contains a libel (somewhere else) in its content, how am I libeling anyone? That is the entire question, together with the damages suffered by Christine.

She has been ordered by the court to not mention the alleged victim of libel, even though Christine had not previously mentioned the plaintiff, much less had any knowledge of her existence. Her website was ordered torn down for the simple link to another, and following its resurrection, she was ordered by the court to restrict her discussion of what had transpired, all based on a false allegation of libel by her. That required a tiresome and not inexpensive response by Christine, for to ignore it could result eventually in a default judgment against her for libel.

I realize that you may be looking for some "valid reason" for Tameira Hollander to have taken the action she did against Christine Baker, but there is nothing stated in the summons to court, other than the link. Linking to another website, no matter how egregious the comments may be in that other website, does not constitute libel in the absence of independent statements on the linking website specifically furthering the other's wrongful content.

Prior to ~2002, one could be prohibited by a target website owner from linking to his/her website. That resulted in many websites simply including URLs in their content without the active link. Since then, the courts recognized that links were simply HTTP instructions to a user's browser to go to the other site, and nothing more ... no contextual connection with the target site.

If, somehow, Tameira Hollander were to prevail, it would mean that anyone entering a link to a website containing a libel could find themselves as a defendant in a libel suit, no matter how unaware they were of the other site's full content.

If the issue is so cut and

If the issue is so cut and dry, with such easily researched legal basis and quotes, then why such difficulty proving the case and restoring the site quickly. Guess I'm naive, but I'm not a consipracy theorist.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote: If

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

If you haven't been to her website, the address of which has been posted, how can you comment on the allegations Tameira Hollander has made against Christine?

I can comment on them just like anyone else, I just can't rule on the legitimacy of the defense or plantiff, only the resultant court rulings and arguments made from them. I think many here argue the findings. I'm debating the legitimacy of arguments made against findings of a higher authority.

harleyman-6 wrote: If the

harleyman-6 wrote:

If the issue is so cut and dry, with such easily researched legal basis and quotes, then why such difficulty proving the case and restoring the site quickly. Guess I'm naive, but I'm not a consipracy theorist.

Christine has restored the website. However, Tameira Hollander continues to allege libel. The entire event, including as stated in Hollander's allegations, come down to a simple link, nothing more. You can read the court documents for yourself. If that appears silly, I can only refer you to Tameira Hollander and her legal counsel.

This thread is a very

This thread is a very confusing legal issue to say the least.

I haven't been following this convoluted legal battle in any detail. However at a brief glance , it appears that this may perhaps be a harassment suit without merit.

Having said that, I wonder if the Judge(s) in this case are giving this suit more legal leeway that they would otherwise due to the fact that it is internet based.

To my mind, it seems that legal remedies for internet libel are in their infancy, and in this case, do not appear to be working in the above poster's favor.

chrisaldridge wrote: This

chrisaldridge wrote:

This thread is a very confusing legal issue to say the least.

I haven't been following this convoluted legal battle in any detail. However at a brief glance , it appears that this may perhaps be a harassment suit without merit.

Having said that, I wonder if the Judge(s) in this case are giving this suit more legal leeway that they would otherwise due to the fact that it is internet based.

To my mind, it seems that legal remedies for internet libel are in their infancy, and in this case, do not appear to be working in the above poster's favor.

I think you have the gist of it, Chris. I think the thrust behind the suit long ago ceased to be Tameira Hollander. I see it as a lawyer trying to impress a client. The judge seems not to know where to go, other than to gag her, pending arguments.

In that regard, the judge has agreed to hear submissions on Barrett vs. Rosenthal, in which the trial judge found that Rosenthal's having reposted a libelous email regarding Barrett did not constitute re-uttering of a libel (thus libel), stating that users should be afforded the protections of US Title 41, CDA, Section 230. That section gives facilitators, other than publishers, protection from liability. The judge stated that a user could be regarded as a facilitator in simply facilitating the (re)posting of a writing as long as they did so in the work's entirety.

Christine submitted that precedent, arguing that if the court were to consider her to have been handling a libelous statement, that her link to the website containing the libelous statement(s), it should be considered to be faciliation at most.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
chrisaldridge wrote:

This thread is a very confusing legal issue to say the least.

I haven't been following this convoluted legal battle in any detail. However at a brief glance , it appears that this may perhaps be a harassment suit without merit.

Having said that, I wonder if the Judge(s) in this case are giving this suit more legal leeway that they would otherwise due to the fact that it is internet based.

To my mind, it seems that legal remedies for internet libel are in their infancy, and in this case, do not appear to be working in the above poster's favor.

I think you have the gist of it, Chris. I think the thrust behind the suit long ago ceased to be Tameira Hollander. I see it as a lawyer trying to impress a client. The judge seems not to know where to go, other than to gag her, pending arguments.

In that regard, the judge has agreed to hear submissions on Barrett vs. Rosenthal, in which the trial judge found that Rosenthal's having reposted a libelous email regarding Barrett did not constitute re-uttering of a libel (thus libel), stating that users should be afforded the protections of US Title 41, CDA, Section 230. That section gives facilitators, other than publishers, protection from liability. The judge stated that a user could be regarded as a facilitator in simply facilitating the (re)posting of a writing as long as they did so in the work's entirety.

Christine submitted that precedent, arguing that if the court were to consider her to have been handling a libelous statement, that her link to the website containing the libelous statement(s), it should be considered to be faciliation at most.

In that regard, the judge has agreed to hear submissions on Barrett vs. Rosenthal

THAT is great news Mic--
That judge should also consider that the ENTIRE network is full of users passing links around-and round - Unless they read the link in its legal entirety - before linking it off... they could inadvertently/by mistake pass on an item of libel
Woudncha think?

Imalert wrote: In that

Imalert wrote:

In that regard, the judge has agreed to hear submissions on Barrett vs. Rosenthal

THAT is great news Mic--
That judge should also consider that the ENTIRE network is full of users passing links around-and round - Unless they read the link in its legal entirety - before linking it off... they could inadvertently/by mistake pass on an item of libel
Woudncha think?

Exactly! Should we all be sued for libel for passing links to sites which may have in their content, somewhere, libelous statements?

Is RateMDs.com absolutely devoid of any libel? Probably not. Should anyone of us be sued for libel for simply recommending http://www.ratemds.com?

The entire legal argument by Hollander's legal team has gone past ridiculous; it's almost insane.

Just to clarify, Hollander's

Just to clarify, Hollander's attorney Irving Johnson submitted NOTHING regarding Barrett and at the hearing the Hollander legal team AGREED that I enjoyed immunity for the link.

You can read his proposed order at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14766.html along with the court's minute order. I will oppose the order and then I will appeal on numerous grounds and especially the perjury ruling.

Johnson is now trying to spin it to make it LOOK like I made defamatory statements about Hollander and the ultimate question is whether I am entitled to my opinion.

Why can't I publicly state that I wouldn't see a doctor if he was the last doctor on the planet? I think I'm entitled to my opinion and that will likely become a big issue on appeal.

You also have to keep in mind that attorney Johnson specializes in malpractice litigation (of course defending doctors) and he represents Hollander free of charge. Quite likely, she is his test case, he expected me to roll over like Hollander's patient and that he then could get LOTS of new business "cleaning up the internet" as he calls it.

I just spoiled his business plan. If he sues ANYONE for defamation and the defendants have half a brain, they'll find my websites, contact me and have me write about the case.

I am SO looking forward to presenting MANY of these harassment cases and to ENSURE that the internet is NOT cleaned up.

Doctor Hollander is of course the loser. She thought she was getting such a great deal getting this FREE representation and now her reputation is ruined -- all because attorney Johnson was NOT qualified to take this case. Of course there really was no case.

I don't even know if doctor Hollander can sue her attorney Johnson because she didn't pay him. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Doctor Tameira Hollander SUED to have her NAME removed from my websites and LOST:
http://doctor-tameira-hollander-litigation.info/

The court filings and exhibits:
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14435.html

I'm not a lawyer, but I

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by calling a lawyer a "lying scumbag".

This may , perhaps, lead to further legal troubles down the line ?

In a case similar to that of

In a case similar to that of Tameira Hollander vs. Chrisine Baker, the Supreme Court of Canada has given notice that it will hear the case of Wayne Crookes vs. Jon Newton, in which Crookes alleges defamation.

"The lawsuit involves former Green Party campaign manager Wayne Crookes, who is appealing a British Columbia Supreme Court decision in 2008 that favored a Canadian website. Crookes claims posting a link to a portal that has defamatory statements is tantamount to the publication of that material.

"British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kelleher dismissed Crookes’ lawsuit iin 2008, ruling the links were just footnotes or references to a portal and did not comprise an act of publication. Crookes has fid several libel lawsuits against some members of the Green Party, Google, Myspace.com and Wikipedia.

"Crookes claimed he was defamed by four articles on the Internet on the Websites of www.openpolitics.ca and www.usgovernetics.com, which were eventually linked to the portal www.p2pnet.net owned by Jon Newton.

"Newton said he was not interested in the issues involving the Green Party of Canada, only in free speech and the Internet."

AHN News:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018288517

See also RateMDs:
http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/42463

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote: In

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

In a case similar to that of Tameira Hollander vs. Chrisine Baker, the Supreme Court of Canada has given notice that it will hear the case of Wayne Crookes vs. Jon Newton, in which Crookes alleges defamation.

"The lawsuit involves former Green Party campaign manager Wayne Crookes, who is appealing a British Columbia Supreme Court decision in 2008 that favored a Canadian website. Crookes claims posting a link to a portal that has defamatory statements is tantamount to the publication of that material.

"British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kelleher dismissed Crookes’ lawsuit iin 2008, ruling the links were just footnotes or references to a portal and did not comprise an act of publication. Crookes has fid several libel lawsuits against some members of the Green Party, Google, Myspace.com and Wikipedia.

"Crookes claimed he was defamed by four articles on the Internet on the Websites of www.openpolitics.ca and www.usgovernetics.com, which were eventually linked to the portal www.p2pnet.net owned by Jon Newton.

"Newton said he was not interested in the issues involving the Green Party of Canada, only in free speech and the Internet."

AHN News:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018288517

See also RateMDs:
http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/42463

You probably know more about the Canadian legal system than I. How do you think the Federal Supreme Court will rule on this? Are they more apt to lean towards freedom of speech or protecting their citizens from libel?

This is interesting, since it might affect Canadian raters or a Canadian website that would post a link to RateMDs. What do you think?

Med101 wrote: You probably

Med101 wrote:

You probably know more about the Canadian legal system than I. How do you think the Federal Supreme Court will rule on this? Are they more apt to lean towards freedom of speech or protecting their citizens from libel?

This is interesting, since it might affect Canadian raters or a Canadian website that would post a link to RateMDs. What do you think?

I think that the Supreme Court of Canada will likely uphold the BC Supreme Court.

It's not a freedom of expression question here. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 2(b) of the Constitution) is not in conflict with our rather liberal libel laws.

This is more of a question of whether a hyperlink constitutes an inclusion of the referenced article (as Crookes contends) or whether a hyperlink is merely a reference to an independent thought. I don't see the Canadian court buying the argument that a link causes another writing to be incorporated into the first one. What's the difference between a hyperlink and a mere reference? Machine execution of the link? This very question was visited by the US Supreme Court sometime around 2002, at a time when webmasters could be bullied into converting hyperlinks into ordinary text references, until changes in the law were made. I suspect the same or similar ruling will follow in Canada.

It's virtually guilt by association.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.