Will SB72 be revived in 2012?
On April 6, 2011, the Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2010 (SB-72) died in House Committee by a close 5-4 vote. SB-72 was a bill similar to previous bills that have been introduced the last two years to amend the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to allow for compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases brought under state law.
CADA was enacted in 1951, and prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on age, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion, creed, national origin, or ancestry. CADA applies to Colorado employers of any size, whereas Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Currently, Colorado state law only allows successful plaintiffs to recover equitable damages, including reinstatement and lost wages.
Momentum for the passage of SB-72 came in part from Colorado’s recent recognition of sexual orientation as a protected class (sexual orientation is not protected under federal law). However, SB-72 would have created substantial unfairness to small businesses in Colorado as punitive damages have been made uninsurable by the Colorado Supreme Court (Lira v. Shelter Insurance (Colo. 1996)). Further, because age also is a protected class under Colorado state law, SB-72 would have allowed state age discrimination plaintiffs to have remedies beyond those available in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which does not provide for compensatory or punitive damages.
Colorado is one of 8 states in the country that has yet to pass a similar bill. That means 42 states in the United States have already recognized the importance of this bill. I am certain the 9to5 Women’s Organization and a number of similar advocates will present the bill for yet another round of scrutiny in 2012. I will be there once again to show my support.
About Face…Retreat!
Bjorn Borgen’s blog proudly showcases his interpretation of my posts and book as “sham publications”. Through his current litigation, Bjorn Borgen insisted he could pursue claims of slander, libel and extortion to force the removal of all content from my publications to the internet and the publication of Courage and Consequences this month. Instead, shortly after the production of our witness list and document list for trial, Borgen requested to vacate the trial and all claims. Another brutal year and a half gone by. Three weeks before the scheduled trial date. The third of three and not likely the last.
When it comes right down to it, people simply want to be heard. I want to be heard. When people are wronged, they want a remedy and system to protect them –even if they cannot afford it –which is the case with almost all civil suits involving individuals and small businesses. My trip to Washington, DC last month was inspiring and hopefully, with the continued publication of the ProSeProject blog ..now exceeding 4,322 hits, the publication of Courage and Consequences, and the upcoming speaking opportunities across the country, I hope to become the example I wished for five years ago. I am grateful to the women in Vail and Denver who came forward to corroborate the bad behavior by Borgen and remind me that sometimes, doing the right thing, comes with a price. Their stories and personal accounts painted a picture of a man who hurt a lot of people who trusted him. I have paid dearly for standing up for myself and in the process, I have also found purpose –for myself and for so many others that share similar stories. I forgave Mr. Borgen a long time ago. But clearly, if the issues remain, there is still more to learn from the situation and more to be done!
I read that your character is essentially the sum of your habits. Amen to that! Character development is an ongoing process and I am forever grateful for the challenges that have brought me to this place –right here–right now! Mr. Borgen inspired me to keep a list. I list situations where I contributed to someone else’s distress and I say a quiet prayer and ask for forgiveness — in some cases, I send a note or letter and ask directly. We are human. We make mistakes. It is essentially up to each of us to remedy those mistakes. I can honestly say I have a solid list. I include mistakes, unkind words or examples where I knowingly hurt another person –even when I thought I could justify it. I also have a blanket apology for the moments I truly am unaware. With every apology, with every acknowledgement of someone else’s feelings, something amazing happens. Truth. There is something about honesty that strips away all anger and resentment. The only reason we hide our faults and bury our misdeeds is pride.
It would be hard to publish a book about my experiences with Mr. Borgen, his investment, the litigation and the flood of mistresses that came out of the woodwork –paint a picture of a powerful player that misused his position –and omit my own mistakes. My challenge with this project has been to turn my own mistakes into something of great value –empathy, humility and purpose through advocacy.
If you want to find your true purpose in life, know this for certain: Your purpose will only be found in service to others, and in being connected to something far greater than your body/mind/ego. –Dr. Wayne Dyer
Trial By Jury –sooner rather than later
I am so very pleased that the ProSeProject blog has reached almost 4,000 national views since it was launched last year! The comments both private and public by individuals who have endured a long and painful journey through litigation are immeasurably helpful and inspiring to me.
Since posts have been somewhat shielded during the current litigation, important dates coming up should be noted for those who have expressed interest in participating. The expedited one week jury trial is now scheduled for June 20 – 25, 2011. Representing me in this case is the firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLC with Christopher Beall as counsel. If you search the history of this firm and Mr. Beall, you will come to the same conclusion I have that this good fortune is nothing short of divine intervention.
The launch of Courage and Consequences is slated for August 2011 with a pre-launch party and galley copy preview in July 2011 at the Ritz Carlton in Denver, where I am excited to reveal the contributing writer who prepared the foreword to the book and lend themselves to the credibility of the story that I truly hope will be of great value to so many.
Also of special note, SB72 did not pass Congress this session and I will continue to support the women’s organizations that brought this bill to the forefront. The 9to5 Working Women’s Organization brought me into the lobbying of this bill where I provided testimony and spoke at both senate hearings this year. I am privileged to participate once again in preparation for the 2012 session to re-present this very critical bill.
I certainly look forward to writing the final chapter and am grateful for the change of the trial date –which aided in pushing up the production of the book and assisted with solidifying speaking engagements for this year and next. It’s amazing how your career changes in ways you could never have imagined! Once a writer, always a writer! Once a speaker – always a speaker!
One Step At A Time
While I have kept much of my notes, commentary and my manuscript to myself during the recent trial proceedings, I cannot help but feel a brief moment of relief for the very important “win” that will continue to define what this case and the two that came before it, are all about. Standing up for myself and speaking out.
2011 Equal Justice Conference
Equal Justice Conference | May 18, 2011 — May 21, 2011 | Location: Las Vegas Hilton 3000 Paradise Rd Las Vegas, NV, 89109-1283
With Liberty and Justice For All
“Muddy water, let stand, becomes clear.” –Lao Tzu
People often underestimate the power of a simple straightforward question. In law and the courts, this very simple question is almost always overlooked. In my case, the very simple question to ask is “What is the truth?” In the four plus years that I have endured litigation with Mr. Bjorn Borgen, the truth is almost always buried in motions, discovery, long-winded legal briefs and depositions. The truth may also be buried under false statements and perjury which can only come to light when strong people come forward. In four years, not much has been accomplished other than the uncovering of dirty truths and the infliction of distress on all parties involved. Playing much to my naivety, I was genuinely surprised that perjury is rampant and there are no penalties for perjury in civil court, even when perjury exists by defiling a court order. How does a plaintiff or defendant prevail in court if the truth is distorted or evaded. Well, you don’t. Those who speak the truth more often than not, lose.
At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, what are we fighting for? I thought I knew that. I believed I was fighting for my company and for my own well-being. After four years, my well-being has suffered quite a bit. At one point, I had deleted all my posts and just asked for peace. I did not get that. In place of peace, I got another lawsuit by Borgen. No longer a spectator to the sport of litigation, I was educated first hand on how this very flawed system works and enduring the fight, I realized that the only people who win in these cases are the lawyers. With legal fees in excess of $400K on Borgen’s side, I am rather certain that the fight will never end when the attorney’s are generating substantial income at a steady pace for their firm.
For the last few years, I believed I was fighting for my right to speak. Well, I have that right to tell my story and I have decided it is much better told in the pages of a book rather than the rantings on a blog. It is a sad story –one that began with faith and respect for the legal justice system –and ended in complete disgust that the ideal of equal justice is deeply embedded in American legal traditions and routinely violated in daily legal practices.
The politics involved with civil suits and the gross manipulation of justice when extensively funded parties usurp the underfunded and unmatched defendant(s) or plaintiff(s) signifies legal disaster in the making for those who need justice the most and seek it out with blind faith.
A half a century ago, the Supreme Court observed that “[t]here can be no equal justice when the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”
So, in complete faith in the Universe and a new perspective on our legal justice system, I have profoundly changed my opinion of how justice is served. In my case, justice is not served with an online rant and the exploitation of one man’s excessive and reprehensible exploits – regardless of how they have damaged me and my company. The people who have been damaged by Borgen’s senseless actions and complacent motives are simply …relative.
I am proud to move forward with the literary foundation I have secured for myself as a journalist, moving from print magazines to non-fiction productions. Armed with extensive research and a more productive agenda, I have my sights set on Stanford University in California and an ultimate wish for the guidance and tutorial of Deborah L. Rhode, Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Center on Ethics at Stanford University and author of Access To Justice to push me forward as I enter the next life changing adventure!
It is unfortunate that the legal battles continue –at the demand of Borgen and Mr. Merrick, but I see something of greater value for my future than engaging the enemy for what seems to span a lifetime! Jumping on this new adventure comes with a hefty price tag –the endurance of four years of litigation (and counting) is never worth the money spent or demanded, but I am considering every cent an investment in what is to come! With over three thousand views from 30 posts since January 2009, and escalating at record pace, I am pleased to transition the blog to a book and my life to advocacy for progress and legal justice reform. Preferably in a way that would make God, my father and Glenn Beck proud!
a Blind Eye in Court
Family Court is often called the Perjury Palace for the simple reason Perjury is not prosecuted. If they can lie in family court, imagine what they do in civil court!
I watched as a woman behind me the other day was filing papers with the clerk of the court. She had lost custody of her child to her jobless husband who had lied in Court in an effort to evade child support demands. His only option, take custody of his 8 month old child away from the working mother. The father, on three convictions for crack cocaine, has this child to raise. Where on earth does a Judge allow such a travesty? Well, from what I have witnessed first hand, all you have to do is just …. lie …and be armed with a lawyer in court.
I know what you are thinking. This is a fluke case. Well, let me educate you on the realities of civil and family court. He who has the best resources to manipulate the outcome, generally prevails.
Because the Golden Rule in Family Court is: It’s never about the “Best Interests of the Children.” It’s always about litigation. This applies two-fold to civil court. It is never about the truth – it is about money and politics.
After all, the business of government is; business.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after; so that when men come to be undeceived it is too late: the jest is over and the tale has had its effect.”
Jonathan Swift
November 9th, 1710
Let’s take another example. On Monday the 17th, I filed a motion for sanctions to recover from abuse of process, perjury (on court ordered interrogatories no less), obstruction of justice, discovery abuse, procurement by fraud, false testimony and a demand for a new trial. I was amazed and disgusted that after providing 59 pages of evidence to support my claims and completely substantiate my case, Judge Morris Hoffman “denied” my motion after a brief review.
From January 2009 to now, November 19, 2010, a long two years of torturous hell, I simply cannot fathom how our elevated justice system is so … well….. primitive and corrupt. Yes, that would appear to be a bias statement coming from the losing party. But let’s face fact here. In 2006 my investor, Mr. Bjorn Borgen agreed to place $750k in my company (documented). He placed $200k in the form of promissory notes. In November 2006, my investor had his tongue down my throat, hands on my breasts and pinned against the bar at Capital Grill in Denver and demanded I come home with him for sex, (police report and witness identification). I publicly chastised him and promptly backpeddled. We then engaged in six months of torture by involving advisors who made agreements with Borgen to extend the notes and place the additional funds. Borgen agreed and then in May 2007, “changed his mind because I took to long to secure another investor” —after one was secured. My attorney friend drafted a demand and Borgen retaliated with a lawsuit. He called the notes …early. I lost my job, my company of five years and my benefits. I was in debt because of Borgen. I spent almost two years fighting as a pro se party because I lost my assets and could not afford counsel. “They” admittedly could not afford to fight Borgen and his unlimited bank account as a millionaire power house. Four weeks before trial, (after a long and greuling year of battle) the case was dismissed in favor of Borgen as all my motions and evidence could not be entered … as they were submitted pro se. I filed a new suit in 2009 and added sexual harassment, a claim I was not protected under with Title VII (my company was fewer than 15 employees) Judge Morris Hoffman dismissed my first four claims on res judicata. Really? I never once had the luxury of arguing my first four claims of breach of agreement, fidicuary duty, etc. and now…it seems the Court would ignore the fact that they were moved aside as a formality, not merit. So, my remaining claim of IIED via sexual harassment and retaliation was the topic and argument for the next year. Not my favorite but the premise for the entire drama that began in 2006 and retaliation that followed.
After endless depositions of my physical therapist, chiropractor I saw twice, even my ex-husband, (the witness at to the assault at Capital Grill was never deposed by Mr. Merrick on behalf of Bjorn Borgen), and a brutal schooling of the legal justice system in favor of financially armed defendants coupled with dirty litigators, I learned that “lying” is just a pastime and calling foul is for babies.
In depositions I conducted, was told I was too badgering. I learned from the School of G.W. Merrick, but I have to say, I barely got a word in edgewise when Merrick continued to blather on and on until they finally stormed out of the deposition of Mr. Borgen. Even the court reporter was astonished and indicated Mr. Merrick was abusive. I was pretty much in tears. Hard to conclude I was bullying. In retrospect, I can see why it happened, the questions to be answered in this case (rather than the former case where I was able to depose Mr. Borgen for almost six hours) were a bit more “personal”. The deposition lasted about 10 minutes. similarly, the same occurred with the deposition of Mrs. Borgen. Mr. Merrick even led her to answers. It seems this is not ethical, but I’m just a lay person. She indicated Mr. Borgen’s forward advances were just “being friendly”.
So — while I asked all the right questions, Borgen was never required to answer. With a court order to compel the responses to interrogatories, Borgen lied. I didn’t know he lied, until this year. That was the premise for my recent motion. When witnesses came forth and new evidence was discovered, I was beyond elated. I knew I had finally won my case. Oh…but not so fast. There are hundreds of motions a litigator can file to stifle such new discovery. And stifle they did. The motion pending is Borgen’s motion to prevent public access to my motion for sanctions. Must be something good in there yes? Well, not good enough to get Judge Hoffman to determine that perjury, false testimony and obstruction of justice should be sanctioned. What was in my motion? Twenty years of bad behavior on the part of Borgen with a history of workplace abuse. I naively thought that ten plus years of workplace adultry would be relevant to my case of sexual harassment. Seems, I am mistaken. I also thought that Borgen’s blatant refusal to provide truthful statements that were also relevant in this case would promptly result in an award of motion for sanctions and obstruction of justice. Another misnomer. What does this represent to women in the workplace with similar issues who expect the courts and existing laws to protect them? It is reasonable to assume that the price for courage to speak up is absolutely not worth the consequences of enduring a failing system.
Yes, I could go on and on because I am absolutely sick — but, I will do what I am meant to do –and speak as loud as I possibly can for civil justice reform. When a court system relies on “he who has the most money, wins” it isn’t a system of justice but a system of politics and self-serving interests. When a man with a history of abuse, philandering, adultery, obstruction of justice and well, lying, is given a “pass”, that is not a system of justice, that is a challenge for reform.
While I would prefer to spend less time in an appellate court and more time in a forum for justice reform, I am learning that all reform starts with on single motivation –a glaring injustice in need of public attention. Perverting the course of justice not only affects the parties involved in a civil suit, it effects an entire nation of believers who are insistent the court system will favor justice and truth above all else. This belief is naive and until you find yourself in poverty, bankrupt and on welfare at the hands of a defendant motivated to lie under oath and pay substantially for his innocence, you will not know travesty of our legal justice system.
My case aside, I am fortunate. I can speak up for those who can’t and my motivation for reform is personal. I have seen the destruction that happens in a corrupt court and I would rather lose for telling the truth and for submitting sub par legal briefs than ever win on lies and immoral litigation tactics that only serve to undermine the very foundation our Courts were founded on. What is more disturbing is that 9 out of 10 attorneys I have spoken with ensured I would endure a loss. Not because I didn’t have a sound case, but because I did not have representation. So, in the end….you cannot win in court unless you hire a bully to represent you. The courts will not take you seriously because they naturally assume that all good cases have lawyers to follow. Do you know that most cases never make it to court because most plaintiff’s or defendant’s simply cannot afford counsel. So, you lose by default if you are a defendant and you simply “let go” of your claims if you are a plaintiff without deep pockets to pursue claims for damages. Yes. This is a system I would like to actively lobby for change.
And….in the words of John Paul Jones, “I have not yet begun to fight!”
Ms. Streeter’s Rebuttal
ProSeProject is trying to locate this witness for the Campbell v Borgen civil suit.
Why not just take a polygraph? (Counsel for Mr. Borgen denied my requests for polygraphs in 2010 and 2009).
Ms. Streeter’s rebuttal – as found online is available here: http://piastreeter.net/
Mr. Borgen registered Ms. Streeter’s name, along with other domains, in September 2010, in an effort I assume to post their side of the story. I applaud the effort. What I do find discouraging is Ms. Streeter’s comments were never submitted to me directly when requested several times in 2010. Ms. Streeter was also identified by Vail women as well as witnesses in 2006 who placed her hand in hand and kissing with Mr. Borgen at a dinner party. I realize asking for her direct account of the events in 2006 was probably asking for too much, however, it seems she now has provided commentary with the link above. (This link was found through a Google search, not by the submission of Ms. Streeter or Mr. Borgen). Mr. Borgen registered the link and I can only assume wrote the content for Ms. Streeter. An effort I find highly questionable given the circumstances. Index of Registered Domains
Mr. Borgen’s behavior, which has been uncovered as several accounts of adultery, perjury and evading discovery, is far more reprehensible than my search for the truth and exposing Mr. Borgen’s activities along the way.
Thank you Ms. Streeter for your post as provided by Mr. Borgen. Your response in October 2010 would have been greatly appreciated when you were asked to testify. You refused to comment and you refused to confirm or deny the posts that uncovered your identity (which were provided by your Vail counterparts). Your response as posted now is questionable. But, as a journalist, I am happy to provide the link. While I am certain your relationship with Mr. Borgen is one of fond memories, I can assure you, so are the accounts of former mistresses who have provided contradictory evidence to support claims of misconduct.
Ms. Streeter, please be reminded, I was with you on the evening in 2006 where you had dinner with myself , Mr. Borgen and Governor Nominee Bill Ritter. You may post your statement now, in the wake of Mr. Borgen’s exposed controversies, however, my recollection along with several other attendees, places you in a precarious position. I can vividly recall being relieved that Mr. Borgen brought a “date” for the evening and that diminished the pressure of his advances. I was elated to see him happy and affectionate with you –and at the time, I was completely unaware Mr. Borgen was married. Had you participated by engaging in a telephone conversation to relay your side of the story, you might also have been made aware that there were several witnesses who submitted an affidavit to what they saw that evening between yourself and Mr. Borgen.
Mr. Borgen hid an intimate relationship of eight years with his executive assistant from Mrs. Borgen – from 1993 to 2000 – and up until this year. Signed Statement “Ms. Jones” 2010 A woman, Ms. Tolar, was fired for trying to inform Mrs. Borgen of the affair. I am certain your statement (as contradicted by other witnesses) will not hold much weight when it is initiated by Mr. Borgen and not you. You are also quite well-informed of Mr. Borgen’s relationship with your close personal friend in Vail. Your comments via the post as sponsored by Mr. Borgen are only truthful in part.
I urge you again to keep in mind, this plight is about truth and demanding an apology by Mr. Borgen for his offensive behavior that led to the destruction of my company and four years of my life. His continued arrogance only serves to open more doors to the truth – many doors that I found closed during four years of litigation. Had it not been for your friends in Vail, I would never have identified you. In legal briefs and depositions, Mr. Borgen claimed he didn’t know you and didn’t recall attending this event (shown above) with anyone. That speaks volumes about your solid relationship with the Borgen family.
And…for your reading pleasure, you might refer to the correspondence to Mr. Merrick by me that on numerous occasions, seeks to protect Mrs. Borgen and others from the arrogance that has ensued by Mr. Borgen’s behavior that has gone unchecked for years. You can pen a statement in support of Mr. Borgen, but he cannot hide from the truth. Mr. Borgen behaved badly and has effected a number of women in the past 20 years and through continued retaliatory behavior, he has not deviated from his position and shows no mercy for me and others who stand up for what is right. My condolences to Mrs. Borgen. It is unfortunate that I am the recipient of all things hidden from her. That is certainly not a position I expected four years ago when I simply stood my ground. As a friend to the family for 25 years as you state Ms. Streeter – you should be ashamed for looking Mrs. Borgen in the eyes with what you know — and lying to her.
Email Correspondence to Mr. Merrick Dec. 1 2010 Email Correspondence To Mr. Merrick RE Judgment 2010
In Pursuit of The Truth – As Graciously Provided By “Ms. Jones”
“What is the truth?” In the four plus years that I have endured litigation with Mr. Borgen, the truth is almost always buried in motions, discovery, long-winded legal briefs and depositions. Most recently, the truth was forced to engage in some bench time when Mr. Borgen filed his Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony and Materials from the November 12, 2010 hearing. What was presented as evidence for this hearing is exactly that – the truth.[Scroll to the bottom for the downloads of the exhibits for the hearing and relevant motions in this case].
Signed Statement “Ms. Jones” 2010 0001 Note 1 Letter 2 Card 1
It wasn’t until this year, 2010, after years of frustration at getting to the truth that the truth miraculously just appeared. Everything I had been trying to address with the Court for so long and with tremendous obstacles at every moment led to more lies and deception. At the end of July, I moved everything into storage and was stripped down to my last dollars. I toted my 9 year old son and we took off. Quite literally in fact, we headed west and ended up in California. We stayed in hotels and with friends and hoped for a clearer perspective. At the moment I thought I had landed and found contentment with my surroundings, Mr. Borgen’s attorney filed a motion for a restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief and demanded a hearing. The purpose of the motion and hearing was to secure with force and court order I remove all blog postings and refrain from talking about the case and my experiences.
And so it was, November 12, 2010 was the scheduled time to appear. I had to pack everything back up and return to Colorado from my beautiful retreat in California and address the issues again with the truth and my story. I gave up employment opportunities as I was instructed by Mr. Merrick that I would not be able to respond to motions or file briefs without being physically present in Colorado. I’ve been done with this maneuvering and deception for quite some time now and have been ready to move on. But I keep my fighting spirit alive every time I have to defend who I am and what I stand for.
In late September, I received an anonymous call from a woman in Vail who identified my mystery witness as Pia Streeter. I was elated to finally find the woman who was in a romantic relationship with Mr. Borgen in 2006. Ms. Streeter refused my calls and refused to respond to my request to verify the information posted in this blog was accurate. Shortly thereafter, information was uncovered that would completely change the dynamic of this epic saga in the courtroom. Mr. Borgen was involved with women at the office – and more than one. Now one in particular was not just any woman mind you, he was intimately involved with his executive assistant – and when another woman in the office attempted to inform Mrs. Borgen of Mr. Borgen’s relationship she was promptly fired.
How does this relate to my case? During four years of drama and evading discovery, Mr. Borgen …well, lied. When asked if he had ever been involved with a member of his staff. He said “no”. When asked if he had ever engaged in an illicit affair, he said, “No”. When asked if he ever lent money to or invested in a woman, not his wife and engaged in sexual relations, he said “No”. When asked if he ever engaged in untoward conduct or sexual contact with any woman other than his wife he said, “No”.
Mr. Borgen has gone above and beyond to assert that I have filed frivolous claims and that Mr. Borgen has not ever engaged in illicit affairs. With a most recent motion, Borgen states, “Campbell’s grotesque publications –that seriously invade Borgen’s legitimate right to privacy…” While that privacy right may be argued when Mr. Borgen has found himself in a number of illicit affairs during the course of his marriage and that this entire case is based solely on his untoward conduct and retaliation for my refusal to entertain his sexual advances, privacy is relative. In fact, counsel for Borgen opened a private child support / custody file in Arizona Family Court and actually contacted the father of my child and spoke to his wife and attempted to extract information about me. One would think this might be fair, however, Mr. Merrick is well aware of his boundaries and when a nine year old minor child is involved and the custody case is not relevant in any way to this case, it is quite frankly, unethical. The outcome of that case in Arizona is forever altered and I will do my best to remedy the damages done by Merrick.
In this case, however, we have to go back to the very nature of the claims and ask one simple question. “What is the truth?”
The truth is, once my evidence was submitted in a motion filed with the Denver Civic Court on November 5, 2010 in response to Borgen’s request that all witness testimony and materials be barred, Borgen eventually withdrew his demand for temporary injunctive relief and vacated the hearing scheduled for November 12, 2010. So what was to be presented at the hearing? Eight witnesses and a slew of documents that not only substantiated my claims, it supported my insistence that Borgen had been submitting perjured testimony, affidavits, interrogatories and briefs since 2007.
What does this say about the legal justice system? It says that the average person would likely never uncover evidence to prove their claims if buried deep enough and would ultimately lose – without any recourse, and even if they did, the system is not set up to effectively address the injustices that occur every day.
Today, Borgen filed a [Motion to Limit Public Access to Defendants “Answer” Filed November 5, 2010].
So – I miss out on a hearing that would allow me to present the truth. No big surprise. I’ve missed out on the truth by Borgen for over four years. What I can do is exactly what I am doing. Post the truth. The truth is, more people are affected by one man’s arrogance and damages are excessive. To all parties involved.
With permission from “Ms. Jones”, I have included the exhibits and witness statements that were to be presented at the November 12, 2010 hearing. It doesn’t guarantee I will ever win my case due to the insurmountable hurdles offered by counsel and their evasive maneuvers that I still to this day cannot fathom is representative of our legal justice system, but it does prove I never lied. “Ms. Jones” private collection includes over eight years of their relationship and her account of the women who were injured through Mr. Borgen’s retaliatory behavior including the firing of Ms. Sigrun Tolar. The bottom line, I said “No” and Mr. Borgen retaliated. I lost everything and am still engaged in what feels like a stalker who engages in litigation for the thrill of seeing you suffer!
There are over eighty exhibits – see below to view a few of them in list format. As for the women who are currently involved, perhaps the love letters, photos, police reports and witness statements might be a warning sign that there are bigger issues here than my simple civil suit and request for relief.
Stalking can occur in many forms. This legal battle with Borgen and his side kick Merrick is representative of a stalker who simply escalates until the damages are beyond repair, they are fatal. What Mr. Merrick did with my son is a prime example of this. What Mr. Borgen is doing to me is just beyond my comprehension. Of all infractions, whether they be perjury or stalking, one thing is certain, “Ms. Jones” account of Mr. Merrick’s abusive interview is absolutely without a doubt, an example of a felony. Witness tampering is, as far as I have researched, a crime. Mr. Borgen’s multiple counts of adultry and unlawful sexual contact as accounted by more than one person, is criminal. The motion and corresponding hearing to prevent me from posting my story was set by Borgen and after evidence to support my case was provided to the Court and to counsel for Borgen, Borgen withdrew his motion and vacated the hearing.
With that much to risk, I can see why the hearing was vacated. It is unfortunate however, because the truth will continue to be….evaded.
In the mean time, feel free to peruse the truth with the motions as they have been filed to date. The exhibits below are a sampling of the eighty (80) plus letters, photos and documents presented as evidence for this case and to challenge the former civil suit. Photographs were ommitted and certain names blocked to preserve the identity of “Ms. Jones”. Court motions attached reflect the filings as they relate to Mr. Borgen’s motion for injunctive relief and demand for hearing and subsequent withdraw.
Signed Statement “Ms. Jones” 2010
Card 27 0001 Card 11 Letter 2 Note 1
Card 1 Card 12 Card 7 Card 21 Postcard 1 Postcard 3
Postcard 4 Postcard 6 Postcard 9
MOTIONS:
08.20.10 Borgen’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Enjoining Defendant to Remove Publications to the Internet
09.21.10 Notice of Hearing (filed by Borgen)
10.08.10 Amended Notice of Hearing (filed by Borgen to change the date of hearing)
10.27.10 Defendant’s Witness and Exhibit List – submitted to counsel
11.01.10 Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony and Materials
11.04.10 Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion to Vacate November 12, 2010 Hearing
and Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
11.05.10 Defendant’s Answer and Opposition to Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony and Materials
11.05.10 Defendant’s Answer and Opposition to Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion to Vacate November 12, 2010 Hearing (With Exhibits)
11.09.10 Plaintiff’s (Borgen) Motion to Limit Public Access to Defendant’s Answer Filed Nov 5, 2010
What Could Borgen’s Legal Fees Buy?
I will call it Divine intervention that the upcoming hearing date to decide my First Amendment Right to publish my story was moved from October 22, 2010 to November 12, 2010 at the directive of Glenn Merrick, counsel for Bjorn Borgen (despite my continued responses to counsel that I was unavailable for a hearing until after November 15, 2010) it would seem the extra few weeks have been a window of opportunity to present a number of witnesses to defend my stand and my right to speak. The hearing is at the request of Merrick for a TRO and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief To Remove All Postings To The Internet with the claim that the content is not factual and is harmful to Borgen’s reputation and business dealings. I was not surprised to discover however that Mr. Borgen’s reputation also includes a long list of mistresses.
This particular hearing is very important. Specifically – Mr. Borgen denies any impropriety and is adamant that he has never engaged in any behavior depicting infidelity or unwanted sexual advances – to anyone including any employees of Founders. He also stated he never lent money to any female entrepreneur or woman owned business other than Siegel Media (my company). His attorney insists I am captioning Mr. Borgen as a philanderer. I suppose I couldn’t have said it better myself. I just never used those words. Ironically – “Team Borgen” did. Further, Borgen insists my claims are unfounded and inaccurate, causing him to suffer damages.
First let me say thank you very much to the brave women who have contacted me in the last few days and relayed their stories about their relationship with Mr. Borgen. In an attempt to simply state my case and defend my position – the doors have opened to present a much larger story of impropriety and abuse of power with more than just myself as a casualty in the war against sexual harassment and sexual assault.
I spoke at great length yesterday to a woman whom I will rename Ms. Jones. While she gave me permission to use her identity and she agreed to testify at the hearing on November 12th – I thought protecting her from the backlash that would certainly ensue would be appropriate at this time. Her courage and willingness to participate on behalf of my case and myself is inspiring.
Ms. Jones contacted me after her niece saw the blog postings. Ms. Jones had been Mr. Borgen’s mistress for eight years. “He was so charming. I thought he was single, perhaps widowed. It was love at first sight for me. It wasn’t until several weeks after that I discovered he was married. I thought perhaps she was estranged or that they slept in separate beds. He bought me two homes, a car. We traveled a great deal –to his island. He took me to beautiful places. We were a couple for so many years. I knew his wife knew about me. I remember her parking outside my home in the middle of the night while Borgen was with me. I felt sad for her.
Ms. Jones went on to relay that she realized what she was doing was wrong. She tried to end the affair. “That took over three years to accomplish”, she says.
“Borgen always gets what he wants. He doesn’t take no for an answer. I saw how he was with other people. One evening though, we were at a party and my sister told me that while they were dancing, Borgen was grinding against her, had his hands all over her. She told me what he had done and I didn’t believe her. I do now.”
“I remembered one time at the office I was with Borgen at the executive suite. One assistant who also worked at the office [renamed Ms. Smith] had called up to the office. Bjorn freaked out because she was calling up. He told me to hide. He eventually left the suite and followed after her. I am pretty certain he was seeing her also.”
“There was a woman who worked in the office in administration. Sigi Tolar. Borgen overheard Sigi tell Kathy Borgen all about me. She was fired. She didn’t even know why. I knew she hated me, but it was sad, Sigi was employed with Bjorn for over twenty years. I’m not sure if she knows even now why she was fired.”
“I had to take a leave of absence from the company. It was too much pressure. I was his personal assistant and a lot of the staff knew about our affair.”
Ms. Jones’s story is common. A woman is seduced by a man in power. Once you are involved – getting out is easier said than done. Think back on the Clinton affairs. Paula Jones said no. But so many others were seduced by his charm. Let’s also remember that Paula Jones endured years of public scrutiny for even alluding to the fact that Clinton would be engaging in infidelity. Right. Now imagine Clinton is in the room with you. Really? Paula Jones was one in a million who resisted. She was a casualty and my how the Clinton camp crucified her for his bad behavior.
So – what we have for the November 12th hearing is unfortunate. Mrs. Katherine Borgen is on the record defending her husband’s bad behavior and falsely testifying under oath. She is also on the record claiming that my letter to her in 2008 pleading for her intervention is an example of extortion and that I made false claims against Bjorn Borgen. It is unfortunate that this man would drag his wife and mistresses through court in an effort to “win”. How very disappointing that yet again, a man in power with so much in resources and community is so very selfish and self-serving.
Of the other named affairs, the remaining individuals will receive a subpoena for their testimony. Ms. Pia Streeter along with her close personal friend who seems to have engaged in shorter affairs than Ms. Jones but notable ones by a number of eye witnesses will most assuredly bring a new spin on this disconcerting case.
Given the number of hits to this blog, I am confident that other witnesses will come forward before the 12th with additional information to add to the foundation of my claims that substantiate the untoward conduct by Bjorn Borgen. The four plus years have taken a toll but one thing is for certain, the uncovering of evidence that smacks of abuse of process to maintain a lifestyle to which Borgen is much accustomed is also a testament to women everywhere who step up and speak out against sexual harassment –that in time –everything and I mean everything –will become evident.
I am without a doubt extremely grateful that Bjorn Borgen launched this third and profoundly revealing lawsuit against me citing “slander and libel” for “actions that Bjorn Borgen did not and has not ever engaged in”. To be very clear, Bjorn Borgen is suing me for having sued him and claiming he engaged in any unlawful sexual activity and impropriety. Bjorn Borgen is suing me for extortion claiming my letter and plea to Mrs. Borgen to control her husband in January 2008 was an attempt to secure money and finally, Bjorn Borgen is suing me for abuse of process, claiming that I used the legal justice system to fabricate lies about Borgen that are categorically untrue.
A very special thank you to the women who have come forward with information and the names of Bjorn Borgen’s mistresses as well as details of his affairs. While my legal claims have absolutely no interest in his sexual behavior, the information received does paint the appropriate picture of B jorn Borgen’s long-standing relationship with women and his disrespect for Mrs. Katherine Borgen. I am hopeful that judicial review of my case will conclude that I launched my suit against Borgen for sexual harassment was with merit and that Borgen is in fact capable of engaging in retaliatory behavior when he is not pleased with a response such as mine which was an emphatic “NO” to his request for sexual favors in exchange for the remainder of the investment proceeds Borgen agreed to place with my company.
To be clear – Bjorn Borgen is suing me, the victim of unlawful sexual contact and sexual harassment – for an amount still to be determined at court and in excess of several hundred thousand dollars – for standing up for my right to say “no”. To date, that right has come at a very high price. Mr. Borgen was sued by me in 2009 for sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of agreement for $2.7M. The statute of limitations had run out by 43 days as the testimony of both Bjorn Borgen and Mrs. Katherine Borgen were submitted falsely under oath. The statements provided at the November 12, 2010 hearing will support the claims against Bjorn Borgen for perjury, however, the 2009 case against Borgen cannot be re-opened, despite the blatant legal errors.
Any information related to this may be directed in confidence via email or by phone to: candy@coloradowomen.org or 720-233-5426.
What Could $400,000 in Legal Fees Used To Cover Up Bad Behavior Buy?
It is absolutely disturbing to me to see where a millionaire’s money is or could be spent. Let’s take a look at the last four years of Bjorn Borgen’s legal fees isolated to the Campbell v Borgen litigation. With almost four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) dedicated to suppressing evidence, hiding witnesses, engaging in perjury and of course perpetuating the harassment to the victim of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, Mr. Borgen has abused the legal process in an effort to “protect his reputation”. A better use of financial resources? The donation of $4,000 to 100 charities. The launching of 10 companies with seed money of $40,000. One month’s unemployment relief check for 235 people. Probably food and water for a small country for a year. You get the idea.
Is this the legacy you would wish to leave behind?
Let’s not forget the basic facts.
Although saddened by the number of women effected by Borgen, I would like to redirect and point out the basic facts. I did not participate with Borgen’s initiatives. I said “no” and in saying no, I received unfathomable retaliation including legal battles now approaching five years. I lost my company that I spent almost six years building only to see it tanked in a few short months by Borgen. Yes ladies, for saying “no” to a millionaire man who is accustomed to getting his way. I do not judge the women who said “yes” and can understand how the allure of money and prestige coupled with boyish charm and great enthusiasm is so intoxicating -that once you get ahold of your wits it may be too late! I also do not judge Mrs. Borgen who clearly knew about the affairs and took a back seat when I pleaded for assistance and intervention once I found out Borgen was in fact not a widower. We each make choices every day of our lives. I still stand firm with my choice and will see this case (the third of three involving Borgen – two of which he launched – clearly in retaliation) to the end.
What Was Lost
I think a very difficult part of the litigation process is losing sight of what the true issues are. So many motions flying back and forth, and yet, somehow, the things that matter most are distorted.
So — here is a nice slide show of what was lost from the business side. I lost the opportunity to profile entrepreneurs in our community and be a voice for their story. What a tragedy. I suppose I will have to find another way to be a voice and an advocate for those very same entrepreneurs!
It Doesn’t Matter Whether You Win Or Lose…
Navigating the legal system is simply an exploration of a foreign country that you cannot begin to describe to anyone who has not set foot on the terrain. I grew up believing that when somebody did something that was against the law or when you had a civil dispute, there were safeguards in place within the civil justice system to protect the innocent and assist two parties who disagreed –hopefully with an amicable resolution around the corner.
The American justice system is in disrepair. More than ever before, our courts are the province of the wealthy: private counsel is expensive, civil legal services programs are underfunded and restricted, and technical rules destroy legitimate claims.
It has been sixteen (16) months that this case has been active. During this time, I have witnessed extremely bad behavior by the defense counsel, Glenn Merrick, from badgering witnesses to harassing me directly for even considering filing a claim against his client, Mr. Borgen.
Motions that are filed are ridiculous to me but must be responded to nevertheless –and in a way that is logical and reasonable, despite the original filing by the defense. One such document was Mr. Merrick’s Motion To Terminate Deposition of Bjorn K. Borgen and For Award of Attorney’s Fees. It was cited that I had deposed Mr. Borgen and within twelve minutes, they were forced to vacate the deposition as I was “intimidating the witness”. Well played Mr. Merrick. I have learned one very important rule that defense counsel uses: lie and evade. So far, counsel has prompted his client to lie under oath and in this instance, Merrick crafted a diversion to assist his client from having to answer questions under oath. I am elated however to throw Mr. Merrick’s deposition transcripts conducted of me and several witnesses and place it side by side with the 12 minute deposition I conducted of Mr. Borgen. Simply amazing –and I was played. Yes, it is a bit challenging when Merrick has 30 years of law practice on me –and all I have is a big mouth and a propensity to tell the story –yours, mine and anyone else who needs an advocate to speak up for them!
Now, I am so very thankful that I had the wherewithal to audio tape this deposition, I can say that I followed the pattern of behavior and line of questioning that arose out of Mr. Merrick’s techniques that I could only have believed to be appropriate. Until now.
Merrick is a seasoned litigator with thirty years of experience –that’s thirty years more than I have. Certainly one would conclude that he knew exactly what he was doing. He was getting out of a deposition to ensure his client did not answer the questions that were about to be presented.
Is this fair? Is this even legal? Well, it’s all up to the judge and the interpretation of your response motion. When the judge is left to field the number of motions being filed, long before a trial, it is easy to get bombarded with ridiculous motions and inappropriate orders. But a seasoned attorney would know this now wouldn’t he? Well, yes.
My son asked me recently why I don’t have the magazines anymore. Why I’m not writing editorials and attending photo shoots. Why we don’t get the awesome test cars every week. What happened to the 800 attendee events every year that I produced to introduce entrepreneurs to great connections? I still have that pang of sadness, one of great disappointment that is compounded daily as I fight this fight with the investor who destroyed everything. But to replace it? I have a mission and vision that regardless of whether I win or lose, it all depends on how I play the game.
Out of this legal battle, one that recognizes that a single investor, who is guilty of a physical assault, guilty of sexual harassment and guilty of breach of agreements that took a million dollar company and crushed it out of his retaliatory behavior resembling an eight year old’s tantrum –an experience that led to a new idea was born.
While I lost my vehicle to speak through magazines we produced, I gained a new opportunity to speak. Literally. This year, I was approached by a very inspiring woman in New Jersey who is producing a documentary entitled Pro Se Nation. She asked to add my story to the roster of profiles and I emphatically said yes. This documentary was attracted by PBS and is set for national syndicated release in 2010-2011. Filming begins Summer 2010 and I am elated to be a part of the project.
Following that, I found a voice — that was compelled to write a book –that tells the story of navigating a system that needs reform and where access to civil justice for the general public is non-existent, exposing the flaws and presenting opportunities and ideas for change.
That sparked interest from the legal community and an opportunity to speak at national conferences that target reform. Its primary audience? Judges, lawyers and legal professionals. I’m not a lawyer, but I represent the rest of America. My experience is unusual, but it does carry a great deal of insight.
With that amazing opportunity, a center for civil justice is on the rise to benefit pro se and pro bono parties. This means speaking out for change. Change to the system, change for lawyers and assistance for legal aid organizations that are currently muzzled by insurmountable federal restrictions.
A current release by the National Law Journal stated “Discontent over civil litigation creates backdrop for judicial conference.” This is good news but really nothing new for us laypeople. We already know there is great discontent. In the survey that sparked the conference it was stated, “Corporate counsel almost unanimously agree that civil litigation is too expensive, while 90 percent say that it takes too long.”
Even more unsettling is the survey (administered to lawyers and judges) concluded that fifty-five percent agreed the civil justice system is “too complex,” while 97 percent agreed that it is “too expensive.” In addition, 80 percent DISAGREED with the statement: “Outcomes are driven more by the merits of the case than by litigation costs.”
So, Mr. Merrick, I say to you, “I took this case on because I did not have the $150k required to pursue my claims against Mr. Bjorn Borgen. I took this case on because there needs to be an example of what a typical civil litigation suit looks like – so every American can be thoroughly disgusted with how lawyers are manipulating and maneuvering to rack up billable hours and build their firms. To the demise of every citizen who trusts that each person representing their rights and interests will be doing exactly that. I took this case on hoping to attract an attorney that was still true in their heart with advocacy for the victim in mind — while I found a few, they were overworked and overburdened by the same system they were trying desperately to hold in tact, hoping justice prevailed for all their cases.”
People no longer file claims in civil court. Victims of crimes do not report the crime because they know they will not be protected. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female and 9% are male. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents are male. Rape or sexual assault was the violent crime least often reported to law enforcement (28%).
Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. In a survey of victims who did not report rape or attempted rape to the police, the following was found as to why no report was made: 47% thought nothing coud be done, 27% felt it was a private matter, 12% were afraid of police response, and 12% thought it was not important enough.
In a recent motion by Mr. Merrick, he stated that “Campbell’s allegedly true statements to the Denver Police Department were made three and a half years after the alleged incident of “sexual assault.” If Borgen “sexually assaulted” her, why did Campbell wait so long to contact the police? One wonders what “facts” Campbell will next recall, more than three and a half years after the alleged incident occured.”
The irony is that these statements and recollection of physical untoward conduct were relayed to Mr. Merrick in three separate depositions from 2007 to 2009. There is nothing new about these statements. What is new is that the defense counsel is presenting its best efforts to muck up the content and hope for the best with its case.
The example for women, and why they simply do not speak up, is that many just want the harassment to stop. In 2006, I thought if I brought in advisors and third parties to intervene, Mr. Borgen would stop and I would not lose my company. Why would you report the crime when what you really wanted was to save your company? Reporting the crime would ensure your demise. Just like so many women who are sexually harassed at work. They may love their job and hate their boss and cannot afford to quit. For this, they are told that the harassment must not be very bad, otherwise, they would walk away. Easy to say from a harasser’s perspective.
Such a waste of financial resources that could be better used for community projects. Mr. Borgen has likely incurred over $80k in legal fees thus far. He is likely to double that before the trial is over. I believe I have spent about $965.00 –which is all I have. I am a firm believer in mandatory mediation. Settle the argument don’t create new ones. This case is has transitioned from Campbell v Borgen into Merrick v Campbell, and Merrick is in it to win it –at all costs, even to the public demise of his own client.
So, I guess the best revenge is success. Make your mess your message – it means more to so many that will come after you, especially if it gives them courage and inspires them to step up and speak out!
David Boies Calls For Cheaper Trials
David Boies Calls for Cheaper Trials
Kate Moser
The Recorder
April 30, 2010
“It costs too much to litigate today,” said Boies, founder and chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, upon accepting his Access to Justice award at the lunch.
Boies said attorneys should pare cases down to their essentials early on, and that limits on discovery and on the time allowed before a case goes to trial would save time and money for the justice system.
“I’ve taken depositions that went on for an embarrassing amount of time,” he said, recalling one that lasted 14 days.
But conserving resources will widen access to justice, he said. “We must make trials less expensive.”
Boies touched on his legal challenge to Prop. 8 only once, and in passing, noting that when he started practicing law, “it wasn’t just gays and lesbians who couldn’t get married.”
Despite strides made in the law since then, he said, “our contribution” to the justice system has been to stand by while legal expenses ballooned, more people were priced out of representation and courts shut down for lack of funding.
“That is our legacy, and that, I suggest to you, is what we need to deal with,” he said.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who introduced the court at the lunch, was joined by Justices Kathryn Werdegar, Ming Chin and Marvin Baxter.
First reported in the blog Legal Pad.
e-Filed Pleadings in Civil Suits – Colorado
It is now possible to view the full text of pleadings that have been e-filed in most types of Colorado state civil cases. You can view the pleadings on computers within law libraries. With public access to legal suits, many pro se litigants will find the resources and information they need to evaluate their own claims. It is recommended that an individual seek legal counsel before filing a suit as a pro se plaintiff.
A few of the current pleadings in this case Campbell v Borgen 09CV0591 are:
Verified Complaint Campbell v Borgen 01.09.09 (Plaintiff – Campbell)
Verified Motion for TRO (Defendant – Borgen)
Proposed Temporary Restraining Order (Defendant -Borgen)
Motion to Seal – Motion to Amend CMO (Defendant – Borgen)
Motion to Seal (Defendant – Borgen)
Campbell’s First Set of Discovery 12.09 recov WEDITS
Defense Discovery Responses (Defendant- Borgen)
Statement of Candy A Campbell. Borgen Assault (Campbell)
Response To TRO and Prelim and Perm Inj Relief 03.08.10 (Campbell)
Response To Motion To Seal Verified Motion TRO 03.08.10 (Campbell)
Response To Motion To Seal Motion To Amend 03.08.10 (Campbell)
Response To Motion To Seal Verified Motion TRO 03.08.10 (Campbell)
Response to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel 01.10 (Campbell)
Response to Defendant’s 2nd Motion to Dismiss 04.26.10 (Campbell)
Response to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order 01.10 (Campbell)
Request for Admissions 03.08.10 (Campbell)
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum 04.18.10 (Campbell)
Motion To Compel Discovery ResponsesII 01.10 (Campbell)
BorgenvSiegel4-29-08 transcript Borgen’s Deposition 1st Case
Motion To Compel Discovery Responses 01.10 (Campbell)
2nd Response To TRO and Prelim and Perm Inj Relief 03.15.10 (Campbell)
ProSeProject in Colorado 