Source: http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14435/14722.html
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 08:36:49
Document Index: 464596984

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art-1', 'art 2', 'art-2', 'art 1', 'art-1', 'art 2', 'art-2', 'art 1', 'art-1', 'art 2', 'art-2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2']

CreditCourt Forum: 9/16/09 TRO Hearing exhibits
9/16/09 TRO Hearing exhibits Log Out | Topics | Search
CreditCourt Forum » Dr. Hollander v. Christine Baker » 9/16/09 TRO Hearing exhibits « Previous Next »
Posted on Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 12:16 am:
The hearing was scheduled for 9/9/09 at 10 am. Started late, then judge Rafferty had a "personal emergency" and he called me back and finally he continued the hearing due to another emergency to 9/16/09.
I did not submit any exhibits for the hearing as I thought I could reference my PREVIOUSLY filed motions and exhibits.
However, after seeing Johnson's many exhibits of previously filed documents, I decided to submit my previous filings and exhibits too. The only new exhibit is the WestLaw printout of Barret v. Rosenthal -- a fantastic 2006 California Supreme Court ruling on republication of defamatory statements, granting Rosenthal immunity under the Communication Decency Act for her post of a defamatory email in a newsgroup.
9/16/09 Hearing
Exhibit 1:	The 8/9/08 [CENSORED] ANONYMOUS web form submission, requesting removal of all references to [CENSORED] and Baker�s 8/10/08 response with the request for identification of libelous publications and documentation. Baker�s email was returned undeliverable and she posted the correspondence at creditsuit.org.
[Previously submitted with Baker�s 2/09 Answer and Counterclaims]
Exh-1--8-10-09-offer-to-update-or-correct-my-publications-opt.pdf (263.8 k)
Exhibit 2: The 11/25/08 web form submission by [CENSORED]�s attorney Johnson WITHOUT valid e-mail address, demanding that Baker remove [CENSORED]�s �name.�
Exh-2--11-25-08--Johnson-form-submission-opt.pdf (264.7 k)
Exhibit 3: On 12/12/08 the process server delivered the 11/20/08 letter from [CENSORED]�s attorney Johnson to Baker without identifying a single libelous statement.
Exh-3--11-20-08--Johnson-letter-opt.pdf (321.1 k)
Exhibit 4: The 1/18/09 Mathew Hilton abusive email to Baker with the composite picture of her home and property taken by the process server.
Exh-4--Matthew-Hilton-email-pictures-opt.pdf (67.4 k)
Exhibit 5: The 1/19/09 email communications between Baker and [CENSORED]�s attorneys regarding the Hilton harassment and abuse.
Exh. 5
Exh-5--attorney-Dorweiler-emails-re-Matthew-Hilton-opt.pdf (714.8 k)
Exhibit 6: Baker 9/4/09 Motion for Summary Judgment
Exh-6--Baker-9-6-09--motion-for-summary-judgment-pub.pdf (24.5 k)
Exhibit 7: Baker 9/4/09 Perjury Complaint to Arapahoe County District Attorney
[Previously submitted as exhibit A to Baker�s Motion for Summary Judgment]
Exh. 7
Exh-7--DA-perjury-complaint-opt.pdf (273.8 k)
Exhibit 8: Baker 9/4/09 Perjury Complaint to the Colorado Medical Board
[Previously submitted as exhibit B to Baker�s Motion for Summary Judgment]
Exh-8--CO-medical-board-perjury-complaint-opt.pdf (262.2 k)
Exhibit 9: Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (Cal. 2006) � if Baker HAD in fact republished defamatory information, she would enjoy immunity as a user of the internet under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Exh-9--Barrett-v-Rosenthal.pdf (698.5 k)
Despite several emails, I think I still don't have all of attorney Johnson's exhibits.
Since attorney Johnson's assistant Janet Hone had emailed that he would contact me to exchange exhibits and he did NOT contact me prior to the hearing, I did not receive any exhibits until Ms. Hone started to email them AFTER the hearing.
Ms. Hone didn't optimize the exhibits for the net, resulting in multiple HUGE files and problems with my email requiring tech support. Despite several requests, attorney Johnson refused to provide any missing exhibits and he didn't even send a table of exhibits.
So, I'll have to spend more hours over the weekend to try to piece together their exhibits and to figure out what's missing and I'll post what I got after I sorted everything out.
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 11:07 pm:
Today I FINALLY received a table of exhibits from Janet Hone and I optimized all files:
[CENSORED]V. BAKER
08-CV-2229
September 9,2009 Hearing re: Preliminary Injunction
Continued 9/16/09
PLAINTIFF [CENSORED], M.D.'s EXHIBITS
Exh. 1: Print screen of 7/24/09 Temporary Restraining Order on Defendant Banker's site: Credit Court
Exh-1--CreditCourt-posted-TRO-opt.pdf (141.9 k)
Exh. 2: 7/24/09 Temporary Restraining Order
Exh-2--7-24-09--TRO-opt.pdf (200.8 k)
Exh. 3: 9/8/09 - creditsuit.orq/credit/php/bloq/C181/
Exh-3-my-8-24-09-creditsuit-org-post-about-doctor-censored-opt.pdf (792.5 k)
Exh. 4: 9/8/09 - ratemds.com/socia/?q=node/36379
Exh-4--posts-about-[CENSORED]-at-rateMDs-com-opt.pdf (1719.2 k)
Exh. 5: 9/8/09 - ripoffreport.com/Doctors/Doctor-[CENSORED]/doctor-[CENSORED]
Exh-5--my-RippoffReport-posts-opt.pdf (770.9 k)
Exh. 6: 9/8/09 - complaintsboard.com/complaints/[CENSORED]c152085/page/0.html
-- missing, was not supplied to me
Exh. 7: 8/13/09 - Results of Google search [CENSORED]
Exh. 8: 9/8/09 - Results of Google search [CENSORED]
Exh. 8 part 1
Exh-8-part-1-google-search-results-opt.pdf (1331.2 k)
Exh. 8 part 2
Exh-8-part-2-google-search-results-opt.pdf (848.0 k)
Exh. 9: 10/16/08 - Affidavit of [CENSORED], M.D.
Exh-9--[CENSORED]-10-16-08--Affidavit-opt.pdf (225.1 k)
Exh. 10: Correspondence between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant Baker regarding hearing setting with examples of postings to be removed
Exh. 10 part 1
Exh-10-part-1--emails-re-scheduling-TRO-hearing-opt.pdf (1335.2 k)
Exh. 10 part 2
Exh-10-part-2--CreditSuit-blog-entries-printed-2-18-09-opt.pdf (801.1 k)
Exh. 11: Morrison & Foerster 94 F.Supp.2d 1125
Exh. 11 part 1
Exh-11--part-1--Westlaw-MoFo-v-Wick-et-al-opt.pdf (1166.5 k)
Exh. 11 part 2
Exh-11--part-2--Westlaw-MoFo-v-Wick-et-al-opt.pdf (949.6 k)
Exh. 12: Correspondence between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant Baker
Exh-12--emails-with-attorneys-opt.pdf (888.1 k)
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 03:14 pm:
I still don't have attorney Johnson's exhibits 6 and 7.
At the hearing today judge Rafferty entered Johnson's exhibits 1-10 and 12 into the record and I didn't object.
Then Johnson objected to my exhibit 6-8 and judge Rafferty did not allow my Exh. 6, the motion for summary judgment because it's a pleading. He did allow Exh. 7, my perjury complaint to the Arapahoe DA because I referenced it in my testimony.
I don't recall Johnson's exh. 8 (the Google search results) being referenced.
Attorney Johnson pretended that they didn't know that I hadn't received his Exh. 6 and 7.
Here is my email to his assistant Janet Hone:
"Ms. Hone, these are the exhibits I received from you:
Janet C. Hone	04:26 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker - Exhibit 1
Janet C. Hone	04:27 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 2
Janet C. Hone	04:28 PM 9/9/2009	6	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 3
Janet C. Hone	04:29 PM 9/9/2009	6	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 4
Janet C. Hone	04:29 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 5
Janet C. Hone	04:32 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 9
Janet C. Hone	04:34 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 12
Janet C. Hone	04:56 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 8, Part 1
Janet C. Hone	04:57 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 8, Part 2
Janet C. Hone	04:59 PM 9/9/2009	5	[CENSORED]v. Baker Exhibit 10, Part 2"
Clearly, 6 and 7 are missing.
When she didn't reply I asked for the table of exhibits:
"9/11/09
Dear Ms. Hone,
Since you didn't respond, could you be so kind and provide me with a table of exhibits?
I got NO reply from Ms. Hone, but instead attorney Johnson wrote:
Could it be you have forgotten to send us your exhibits while hovering over and criticizing what we have sent to you?
Be advised that if you do not have them here by noon Monday I will file a Motion to Strike all your exhibits and attach, of course, your various pertinent email.
Irving G. Johnson (Irnie)
5619 DTC Parkway, #1200
Direct Dial: 303-874-3402
Cell: 303-324-1516
Fax: 303-779-0740
email: ijohnson@pjckn.com"
I will post the missing exhibits once I received them.
And I will post details about the hearing as tiime permits. Judge Rafferty requested briefing on why Barrett v. Rosenthal applies to CO or why it does not apply within 15 days.
The next telephone hearing is scheduled for 10/09/09 at 12:30 pm CO time.