A federal judge on Thursday threw out an attorney’s defamation claim against a blogger who was critical of her work representing a special district in Jefferson County and who, she believed, contributed to the district’s decision to oust her.

Mary Joanne “Jo” Deziel Timmins sued the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District after it fired her in the summer of 2021. Timmins also named as a defendant John Kiess Henderson, who she accused of defaming her by posting untrue statements on his website.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney dismissed Timmins’ claims against the district, but allowed Timmins and Henderson to argue whether Timmins could overcome the shield Colorado law generally affords to speech on issues of public concern. Sweeney concluded she could not.

“It is clear to the Court that many of Defendant Henderson’s statements are mere opinions or hyperbole such that Plaintiff cannot prove the statements’ falsity,” Sweeney wrote in a March 21 order. She also noted that multiple quotations Timmins attributed to Henderson were not verbatim statements of his.

Timmins’ alterations to Henderson’s quotes “makes the Court seriously question the veracity of her statements,” Sweeney wrote.

Timmins came to represent the special district in early 2019, around the time the board voted to terminate an intergovernmental agreement with the nearby Big Sky Metropolitan District to transport Big Sky’s wastewater for treatment. Green Mountain’s about-face on the agreement resulted in the filing of a half-dozen lawsuits, which had the potential to send Green Mountain into bankruptcy.

Timmins learned multiple board members had been receiving “pro bono” legal advice from Henderson, who has written about special districts’ “abuse” on his website, Rooney Valley News. It was Henderson who was responsible for drafting the board resolution to get out of the Big Sky agreement.

Timmins became concerned after learning Henderson was working as a public defender, meaning he was not allowed to practice law outside his job. She warned board members about communicating with Henderson, about preserving their emails and about not violating open meetings law. According to Timmins, board members Alex Plotkin, Jeffrey Baker and Karen Morgan did not comply.

Beginning in 2021, Timmins spoke up at meetings to disclose board members’ alleged legal violations and their actions that reportedly endangered Green Mountain’s ability to defend against the lawsuit. She also spoke to reporters about what she witnessed. Despite winning the Big Sky lawsuit and avoiding $140 million in liability for the district, the board’s majority voted to terminate her.

The district argued it fired Timmins because her public statements “generated distrust in and friction with her client, impeded her performance as counsel, and disrupted the regular operations of the District.” Timmins countered that the defendants retaliated against her First Amendment-protected speech.

In March 2023, Sweeney dismissed Timmins’ claims against the district, finding her speech was not constitutionally protected because it stemmed from the work Timmins did on behalf of Green Mountain.

Henderson then moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing they were shielded by Colorado’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Timmins had alleged several of Henderson’s statements about her were damaging and false:

? “Timmons by her own admission is overwhelmed”

? “She could have been terminated for failing to claim a jury trial in the Big Sky case”

? Henderson called Timmins’ professional recognitions a “variation of these marketing tools” where “attorneys can buy their own awards”

Henderson, in his motion, argued his blog posts were either factual, “substantially true” or his opinions.

“Henderson believed at the time of publication, and continues to believe today, that the statements in his blog were true, and he did not entertain serious doubts about his statements or the factual bases for them,” wrote his attorneys. “Loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language may indicate the statement could not reasonably be interpreted as a statement of fact.”

Timmins maintained she had a “good reputation,” which Henderson tarnished “because of his anger and hostility toward her.”

Sweeney agreed Timmins’ claims of defamation could not survive under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law because Henderson either provided evidence justifying his factual statements or had otherwise engaged in opinion.

Sweeney further noted several instances where Timmins’ lawyer quoted Henderson as saying something he did not actually write.

For example, Timmins claimed Henderson wrote that she “had made the decision to sell a new IGA to Rooney Valley developers,” meaning intergovernmental agreement. In reality, Henderson did not write that statement.

Timmins also alleged Henderson had posted that she “violated ethical rules.” Once again, Henderson had not.

Timmins’ attorney, Charles H. Torres, did not respond to an email asking about the discrepancies between his court filings and Henderson’s words.

Sweeney also dismissed Timmins’ claims after finding the “overwhelming evidence” showed Henderson did not cause Timmins’ firing.

While Timmins’ defamation suit was pending, the state’s Court of Appeals revived the litigation against Green Mountain and returned it to the trial court for further proceedings.

The case is Timmins v. Henderson.