Bredfeldt v. Greene: May 22, 2013 Defendant Letter to Pima County Superior Court

Tiffany Bredfeldt
Tiffany Bredfeldt

This article is my third one in my coverage of the Bredfeldt v. Greene “Prior Restraint” case from Pima County (Tucson) Arizona, that began with my blog comments that first appeared on (ROA) and my formal introduction of the Bredfeldt v. Greene case.

Unfortunately, as much I would like to report this case in an organized, linear way, it is not currently possible because I have assembled a mish-mash of information from a variety of sources. I also have incomplete information and will be filling in holes as I get them. Perhaps, when I am further down the line on this story, I can put together an easy-to-read chronology of events and a summary recap. But for now, I have chosen to release the information as I get it as I believe that people should be made aware of this case sooner than later.

There have been a total of three legal cases where Tiffany Bredfeldt and Todd faced off since 2006. In the 2006 case, Tiffany sought a restraining order against Todd. In the 2010 case, I am a bit sketchier on, but I believe Todd filed suit against Tiffany regarding his belief that she perjured herself but case had a short life due to what I heard was a statute of limitations issue. In the chronological context, Todd launched ROA in 2011. It is unclear to me whether he began to immediately write about Tiffany and his legal battles with her. Regardless, it seems clear that Todd at some point did write in such a manner that Tiffany disapproved of and she consequently filed what I understood to be a defamation/harassment lawsuit in 2013.

The reason I mention the 2006 and 2010 cases is that they tie directly to the 2013 case and I will occasionally refer to them. By 2013, there was bad blood between the two. Todd was angry for Tiffany’s alleged extended flirtations with him and allegedly not informing him that she was married. But to make matters far worse, Todd claims Tiffany took the step to secure an undeserved restraining order in a deceitful, deceptive manner by allegedly telling lies and misinformation to the court. As one might expect, Todd took this very personally and believed it tarnished his good name, reputation, and record.

What Tiffany allegedly did to secure the restraining order against Todd has had a long-lasting and damaging impact on Todd. He makes no secret of his anger and frustration towards her and the legal process. Unlike Tiffany, Todd has largely fought these legal battles with little financial resources or legal guidance because he could not find or afford to hire a good lawyer. Tiffany, being the highly-credentialed academic, has had no such challenges with retaining or affording legal counsel to assist her.

As I said in prior commentaries, I cannot credibility speak to the accuracy of Todd’s recollections and accounting of his interactions with Tiffany that began in 2005. But what I consider a travesty is that he is not allowed to tell his side of the story (including his legal battles) directly and unfiltered because of what appears to be a draconian and unconstitutional court order issued by Superior Court Judge Carmine Cornelio of the Pima County Superior Court of Arizona. For anyone, especially a website owner, to not be able to tell their own story publicly is a massive violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. For a website owner to be court ordered to take down entirely constitutional content is unacceptable.

Even if Todd had posted some defamatory material about Tiffany, Todd should have only had to make those narrow, specific corrections and not be required work under “prior restraint” erasing wholesale all mentions of Tiffany and their court cases. If Tiffany wanted privacy, she should never have made it a legal matter in court. With some few exceptions, all court cases are a matter of public record open to scrutiny and discussion. Todd, myself, and anyone else in the U.S. SHOULD BE allowed to talk ABOUT Tiffany, Todd, and their court cases.  We are also ALLOWED to retrieve, read, and public share all court documents and exhibits that was submitted in the case.

Because Todd’s First Amendment rights have effectively been crushed by a court order, I have taken the initiative to exhume Todd’s stories and the legal cases that Tiffany, her lawyer(s), and local judge attempted to bury through unconstitutional means. There will be a growing cast of characters that will be exposed and “outed” as I get my hands on court exhibits and court documents.

The first document that I am publicly sharing comes from a court document from May 22, 2013. It corroborates part of Todd’s anonymized and sanitized stories about Tiffany and their prior interactions. Todd, as defendant, apparently sent his letter to the court ex-parte when he should have also sent a copy of the same letter to opposing counsel. He was admonished by the court for making that procedural error.

I am posting both the text of his letter as well as a copy of the May 22, 2013 court document.


May 22, 2013

Dear Judge Cornelio,

I wanted to thank Your Honor for giving me a fairer shake than I’ve gotten these past seven years trying to unburden myself of lies that have derailed my life and corrupted everything that was most meaningful to me.

I also wanted to ask that Your Honor please, at your leisure, read my answer memorandum to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. I poured all of my time and energies into it, not realizing that Monday’s hearing was what I should have focused on.

Plaintiff Tiffany Bredfeldt has an attention-seeking personality disorder, Judge. When I knew her, she sought maternal attention and approval from my mother and romantic interest and attention from me (cruelly hiding meanwhile that she was married). She related conversations with me to her colleagues at work to glean more attention. And finally to cover her tracks, she represented me as a danger to everyone to excite a different type of attention. And as Your Honor heard from her supervisor, Michael Honeycutt, who has implemented various security protocols to “protect” Tiffany, she has been exploiting an effective lie for years at my expense.

This was all a set-up from the start, Judge, and its representation to the courts was a good, old-fashioned frame job. Even Plaintiffs’ witness Jennifer Terpstra was in on it, and I’m not really sure what her motive was. Most of what I’ve written in the last year was based on information fed to me by Jen. If Your Honor were to compare the emails from her to me that I submitted to the Court with my answer memorandum to your recall of Monday’s testimony from Mrs. Terpstra, Your Honor would readily perceive this for yourself. I’m certain Dr. Honeycutt’s testimony was completely earnest. Everyone else was lying: Tiffany, Jen, and Attorney Marks. I’ve never “propositioned” anyone in my life.

For years now I’ve struggled to convince someone—anyone—in a position to influence an end’s being put to this matter to look at the evidence with eyes wide open and no preconceptions. The truth is clouded with lies, Judge, but it’s nonetheless very palpable. I implore you to please just take a look. While you’re recuperating, maybe.

I wish Your Honor the best possible outcome with your anticipated medical procedure. And a speedy recovery.


Todd Greene


Tiffany Bredfeldt v. Greene: 2013-05-28 by

This court document uncovers the identity of one of Tiffany’s friends (Jennifer Terpstra) that Todd claimed to have initiated a friendship with him, speak critically of Tiffany, but ultimately reappeared in court to testify AGAINST him. It also uncovers the name of Tiffany’s employer (Michael Honeycutt) who “telephonically” testified in the case.

I also find the letter interesting in that Todd states that Tiffany did, in fact, interact with his mother. It was not just two of them alone all the time. In my next article, another personal dimension between Todd’s and Tiffany’s dispute will be revealed.


Follow Defiantly on Twitter at or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.


About Matthew Chan 88 Articles
Matthew is the Publisher and Editor of He is also the Founder, Editor, and Host for Matthew is the author of several business books & audio programs. He is an entrepreneur, real estate investor, and First Amendment advocate.


  1. Maybe Todd was thinking in terms of how the plaintiff in these cases runs to the courthouse, saunters in all huffy, and gets a TRO — EX PARTE — that is, without notice to anyone, and certainly without notice to her victim, the defendant. So maybe this is what Tiffany did. I know it’s done daily in my state, in all 100 counties. We have stampedes of these agitated cattle. The complainer is usually a woman. She’s usually a woman who is angry or ruffled, and ready to assert her gender vulnerability and wield the weapons awarded to her by the VAWA and its long-eared bastards in the states. So she runs to the clerk where she’s been told everywhere — at the beauty parlor, in all the women’s clubs, at church, among her friends, and everywhere she has ears to hear — that these quickie restraining orders are the cat’s meeow for putting a man in his place. Or taking revenge. Or gagging him from saying anything embarrassing or insulting about her on the internet, a la William Lawrence Cassidy or Matthew Chan or Larry Smith.

    I wish I had my hands on that complete Pima County file so I would pull all the snakes out of it and hold them up for the whole world to see.

    • Larry,

      I have attained a number of copies of court documents from the Bredfeldt v. Greene case. As time permits, I will be posting and sharing them for anyone interested in the case. I have been very busy lately which is why I haven’t written anything for a few weeks.

      What I really want to get ahold of is the court transcript but that costs serious money to purchase from the court reporter.

Leave a Reply