Home Page: www.Antiharassment.com

This site contains and includes our opinions.

All photocopied documentation contained herein, including photographs, are public documents (but not without copyright protection). All other text is Copyright © 2005 www.antiharassment.com

Home Page
Perjury complaint against Carl Johnson
Letters to/from James Doros
Victim Statement #1
Victim Statement #2
Witness Statement
Contributions to the Victim
Carl Johnson's Statement
AMA Dump
Answers / Remedies
Public Information

This site documents our experiences with:

Carl Johnson (respondent)
3603 Oak Bay Lane
Port Ludlow, Washington


James Doros ("attorney")
3502 North Fremont Street
Seattle, Washington

On 3-10-05 we received a letter from our esteemed opponent, "attorney" James Doros, representing Carl Lee Johnson. Doros warned us to stop investigating his client.

Below is our reply to Doros:

James Doros ("attorney")
3502 North Fremont Street
Seattle, Washington



We're in receipt of your amazing document of 3-4-05.


If we were Carl's attorneys, and we were purposely trying to enrage and incite Carl's adversaries, which would almost certainly encourage them to strengthen their resolve to put your client in jail, that is exactly the letter we would have written. We wrote earlier that we did not believe you were an imbecile. We herewith withdraw that assessment.


Understand this: We have been threatened, not once, but repeatedly. We know who is responsible---your client. Additionally, every scrap of evidence we've so far uncovered tightens the legal noose around that nut-case's throat. In the first place, your damned client has never been "surveilled" and you have no reason to think he has been. This is another in a growing list of inflammatory and stupid comments made by you in an ongoing attempt to inflame this case such that you will come out with more money in your pockets. We did warn you previously that this case was being presented publicly. To that end you may wish to exercise a bit more caution in showing the world how you operate. Or not.


We have every right to investigate ANYONE who may be responsible for threatening to do us harm or worse. If you disagree with that then you are one stupid son of a bitch. Each time we investigate an aspect of this case, and it continues to point more narrowly to your wonderful, innocent client, we are all the more encouraged, morally and legally to pursue those leads.


If you think you can go to court at this point and convince a judge to enter an order which would prevent our working to learn who is responsible for making threats against us and/or our family, then you should go for it NOW. Do it now, Jim. Why not? We'll simply add that scum-bag tactic to your resume.


Again we say to you this: You are doing your client a huge disservice. Instead of working overtime to enrage and incite your opponent, and to fuel their resolve to bring charges against your client, we suggest you have a long heart to heart with this guy, privately, AWAY from his wife. We know far more about what's transpiring here than you do, or than you think we do.


We have detailed our experiences at http://www.antiharassment.com.index.html


You MUST understand that every dirty little trick you pull or attempt forces us to counter it with FACTS. To that end Rhonda has given her permission to be polygraph tested regarding the 1973 kidnapping. We're certain you would like to take her up on this kind offer. After all, if your client is telling you the truth, this is a marvelous way in which to exonerate him. Here are the conditions: (1) We'll choose the examiner at random. (2) We will promise and gurantee to post the results on our website at www.antiharassment.com. We will post the results there no matter the outcome. (3) We will give you permission to use and post those results anywhere else, as you see fit. (4) If she fails the polygraph, we pay. If she passes it, you pay. --Not your client, but you, personally. This is a bona fide offer, made in public. And now you can report back to Carl that you, personally, are responsible for that. What a wonderful job you're doing for this guy. With an attorney like you........


As you now know we have removed Steve McConnell from this case. He was staggeringly ineffective, and stupefyingly expensive. We have another attorney standing by. We have made appeals to several "special" branches of law enforcement for assistance on this case. We'll sign the new attorney onto the case when appropriate. And rest assured our First Amendment attorney is standing by as well.


There is a Truth here James. We suggest you FIND IT before you embarrass yourself in a way so spectacular and lasting that you'll never completely dig out from under the fallout. Don't let the likes of Carl Lee Johnson cripple an entire career. He'll do it if he can.


In continued disgust,




Maybe Doros thinks he can take us to court and get an order that would prevent us from reporting crimes, as well.

UPDATE, 4-24-05:

James Doros has refused to avail himself of our kind polygraph offer. What a surprise.