After a great deal of thought and consideration, I introduce and make public the “prior restraint” case of Tiffany Bredfeldt v. Todd Greene (Case:20131650) from the online court records of the Pima County Superior Court of Arizona. Superior Court Judge Carmine Cornelio presided over this case.
This case gets my attention for two reasons. One, it has many similarities to my case (which I have since won the appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court) that involves a would-be female accuser (Tiffany Bredfeldt) with their hired attorney (Jeffrey A. Marks) using emotional arguments to convince a local judge (Carmine Cornelio) in a local court (Pima County Superior Court of Arizona) to issue an unconstitutional court order of “prior restraint” (conveniently ignoring the First Amendment) against a website owner and self-representing “pro se” defendant (Todd Greene) because the accuser is upset with speech written about her on his own website (RestrainingOrderAbuse.com [ROA]) and allegedly to other parties (Tiffany Brefeldt’s friends, associates, and employer).
The second reason why I am interested in this case is because the preliminary injunction signed by Judge Carmine Cornelio is so incredibly egregious and abusive, it is an understatement to say that it is a travesty of the judicial system made possible by the apparent conspiracy of Judge Carmine Cornelio, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Philip Bredfeldt, and Arizona attorney Jeffrey A. Marks.
Despite his best efforts as a “pro se” defendant, Todd clearly had no chance of winning whatsoever and the court order silencing him is so stunningly broad, Todd has been forced to communicate his case and personal story in a cryptic fashion. And although Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, would normally protect him from whatever content and information his users (such as myself) might post about his accuser and his legal case to his website, it seems evident the Pima County Superior Court of Arizona, would not recognize it and entirely ignore it.
Since July 2014 and especially in recent weeks, I have developed a much better understanding of Todd, his ROA website, his personal story, and his court cases. In fact, I give Todd and ROA credit for my connection to my amicus brief legal architects, legal scholars, and law professors: Eugene Volokh and Aaron H. Caplan.
It was only because of my email and online interactions with Todd that I was finally able to uncover his true name and identity. I then used that piece of information along with his cryptically told stories to corroborate his stories using Google searches and Pima County online court records. The dockets of his three cases tell a compelling story of Todd’s unhappy, unfair, and abusive experiences with his local court.
Because I am not a party or in any way related to his accuser, Tiffany Bredfeldt, I cannot speak as to the accuracy of Todd’s personal stories and accounts. But my limited interactions with Todd seem to indicate that he is genuine in his efforts to tell his side of the story that he regards as the truth. Todd, as both an individual and website owner, has the right to have his side of the story told. Just because there is a court order forbidding him from identifying and naming his legal adversary does not mean I or anyone else are bound by any prior restraint orders.
It is my intention to assist Todd (whom I now consider a kindred spirit in the area of abusive restraining orders issued by local courts with little oversight) in telling his side of the story using primarily court records and his cryptic, unnamed stories on ROA. I will not be able to share the entire story because I currently only have small portions of the court record. In the days and weeks to come, I hope to accumulate more court records and publicize them. I hope Todd will assist me by emailing me copies of his court records as he finds or retrieves them. Absent his cooperation, I am able to directly contact the Clerk of Court of Pima County Superior Court of Arizona and retrieve court records myself if need be.
For now, I have sufficient information to write at least a 3-part commentary, perhaps even more. What I want to begin with is the court docket for Case: C20131650 filed March 27, 2013.
As you can see, there are many docket entries for this case. However, what I will be seeking are key documents such as the “In Chambers” where minutes were taken by court clerks and view the court exhibits which will show the “evidence” that each side submitted to the court. I also want to retrieve any judgments, rulings, and orders the judge made or signed to see how he arrived at his conclusions and decisions.
However, the most important court document I have retrieved so far is the Preliminary Injunction from May 20, 2013, pages 4-5. The text of pages 4 and 5 state the following (where I have highlighted the egregious parts):
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
- Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to issue a Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED.
- The defendant is ordered and enjoined from having direct communications, or initiating any direct communications with any of the plaintiffs’ employees, employers, or family members.
- The defendant shall immediately remove from his website, images of the plaintiffs. The defendant is given the opportunity to show the Court how to fashion an order and solve the problem as the Court does not want to issue an order requiring the defendant to remove significant portions of his website or blog or order it removed in its entirety. This Court will issue future orders that require him to remove, replace, filter or change the website as he is characterizing the plaintiffs in a false light, invades their privacy or is defamatory. This includes, but is not limited to referring to her as a perjurer, skank, dishonest, etc. The Court is also troubled by the amount of “tags” and personal connection of the plaintiffs to many of the “tags”. The Court finds the “tags” used by the defendant has been done for purposes of retaliation, vindictiveness or vengeance.
- The defendant shall no later than August 4, 2013, file with the Court along with a copy to Mr. Marks, in writing, his plan to redact, remove, replace or otherwise “sanitize” significant portions of his website and all of its postings from the beginning through now, with respect to charges against the plaintiffs regarding fraudulent conduct, perjury, criminal conduct, “skankiness”, sexual impropriety, etc., which shall be removed from the public discourse on the Internet which will demonstrate to the Court the defendant’s purpose, how to proceed, and what the defendant has done and what he is seeking to accomplish.
- Mr. Marks shall prepare an order and submit same to defendant Greene, and upon approval as to form, Mr. Marks shall submit same to the Court for review and signature regarding the defendant not having contact, direct, or otherwise with the plaintiffs, their family members, employees, employers, prospective employers, past employees and employers, friends, etc. and removal of photographs regarding the plaintiffs.
- The defendant shall immediately cease and desist all future publications on his website or otherwise.
- Mr. Marks shall review and file any proposed changes or alternatively his own order no later than August 15, 2013. Upon receipt and review, the Court will set the matter for hearing regarding additional orders. The Court will, at that time, conduct a Status Conference on the balance of the case.
- Until that time, the defendant, shall not make additional publications, oral, written, web based or other communications/publications, regarding the plaintiffs to colleagues, national organizations, family members, employees, employers, regarding the Injunction Against Harassment, the appeal and the history surrounding the Injunction Against Harassment, the factual and contested factual basis and plaintiff Tiffany Bredfeldt’s testimony from this date forward, including reference or inference to the defendant’s own case until further order of the Court.
- The parties shall attend a Settlement Conference with a judge in early September 2013; plaintiffs may appear telephonically. All parties shall be present, including those telephonically, and all parties shall be engaged in the process and treat the matter with all seriousness.
LATER IN CHAMBERS,
The Court sees no need for a bond greater than $1.00, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED same shall be posted by the defendant forthwith.
Further, the defendant shall immediately remove all “tags” associated in any way, direct or indirect, to plaintiff, her employer, or occupation.
The Court signs the minute entry in lieu of a formal order.
HON. CARMINE CORNELIO
cc: Hon. Carmine Cornelio
Jeffrey A. Marks, Esq.
Case Management Services – Civil
Clerk of Court – Accounting Unit
If the final order is anything similar to the preliminary injunction, it will become a showcase of a Pima County Arizona “prior restraint” order that all Tucson website owners need to be very worried about. If it can happen to Todd, it can happen to anyone falling in the Tucson Arizona superior court jurisdiction.
Stop by later this week and more will be reported and revealed.
Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.