PITTSBURGH – A man named as a defendant in a harassment and defamation lawsuit surrounding a brief relationship between himself and a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney has objected to the allegations directing responsibility for the charges in question to him.
Tammy Allison Holloway of Prince Georges County, Md., and Attorney Tammy Allison, PLLC of Texas first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 19 versus Lisa Harris (in her individual capacity, as well as her official capacity as an officer of both Quantum Source Insurance Group, LLC and Hunter Jackson Harris Holdings, Inc.), Quantum Source Insurance, LLC and Hunter Jackson Harris Holdings, Inc., all of Pennsylvania.
“Holloway is a former senior attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice who worked for over a decade in the Office of the Pardon Attorney, tasked with making recommendations regarding Federal Executive Clemency to Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, is a former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C. and is a former senior employment law attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” the suit said.
“After Holloway’s tenure with the DOJ, she opened a private law firm, Attorney Tammy Allison, which assists individuals with convictions to properly submit clemency petitions with an emphasis on Federal Pardons. Allison, as a federally focused practice, is open for business in every state or territory of the United States of America which enforces federal law. Holloway also frequently provides televised legal analysis on CourtTV, Law and Crime, CNN, MSNBC and other news channels focused on law.”
Holloway met an individual named Charles Harris on July 15 in Washington D.C. After the exchange of business cards, Holloway and Mr. Harris began frequently communicating with each other. Over the course of said communications, Holloway learned from Mr. Harris that he was at that point, separated from his wife, defendant Lisa Harris, the suit said.
On or about July 22, Mr. Harris returned to Washington D.C. for the express purpose of engaging in a personal relationship with Holloway, the suit said. On July 23, Holloway and Mr. Harris began a sexual relationship, it added. After the brief relationship ensued in Pittsburgh and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. and ended on Aug. 9, the suit said defendant Harris subsequently reached out to Holloway through multiple mediums.
These consisted of private messages on Facebook, LinkedIn, email messages and text messages over cell phone.
“Hello, my name is Lisa Harris. I am the wife of your current boyfriend Charles. I don’t think you realize what you are caught up in. For a woman of your stature, it would destroy you to be associated with him. I’m taking evidence of several federal crimes he has committed to my attorney tomorrow morning. Also, you should know he totally conned you and is nothing like he portrays himself to be. His businesses are bankrupt, due to him, and he has legal, criminal and domestic charges against him,” the suit stated, quoting one message sent over Facebook.
“He owes $350K to loan sharks, whom he says is the cartel. He has a trip booked to Colombia this weekend with his dad, and he’s been on a Colombian sex site that looks to me like it is underage girls. I think you are probably going to want to call me because you are now going to be involved in the divorce. FYI, you are NOT the only one that he is conning and sleeping with. I have proof of all of this. I’m not upset with you at all, I am trying to help you. I’m not the enemy, and he’s definitely not the victim.”
Subsequent messages from defendant Harris threatened involvement in the plaintiff’s child custody issues and damage to her employment, as well as putting the plaintiff’s name “on the front page of The Washington Post.”
The suit continued that the defendant made defamatory comments on YouTube videos featuring the plaintiff, accusing her of being involved with married men and accepting money from them, before sending her 49 text messages (some of which included child sex abuse photos) and stating, “…I doubt you want to be involved in a DOJ investigation on child sex trafficking.”
Another message featured the defendant Harris implying that Holloway was a prostitute, according to the suit.
Charles Harris was named as a defendant in an amended version of the case filed on Aug. 22, due to his alleged leaving of a voicemail on the plaintiff’s answering machine just two days before, calling her a “f—ed up b—h and whore”, accusing her of abuse and threatening to go to small claims court in Texas or Maryland, in order to recover damages from the plaintiff.
UPDATE
In preliminary objections filed on Nov. 7, defendant Charles Harris denied responsibility for the charges leveled against him in the suit, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“In the present case, there is no allegation that Charles disclosed Holloway’s private information to anyone. Holloway has failed to allege that she suffered any physical injury as the result of Charles’ conduct. Accordinly, Counts II and II fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,” the objections stated.
That same day, the plaintiff responded to the objections.
“Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint with this Honorable Court. By way of further response, the complaint was shortly thereafter amended due to defendant’s actions subsequent to the filing of the original complaint, which actions are discussed in Paragraph 34 of the amended complaint,” according to the response.
“Defendant appears to ‘cherry-pick’ the portions of the law of invasion of privacy that strictly depend on publicity to then argue that since plaintiffs did not allege publicity (in a claim for the type of invasion of privacy that specifically does not depend on publicity) that they failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy. This is arguably sanctionable conduct.”
Plaintiff counsel also responded that they properly pled charges of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
For counts of defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages in economic and non-economic forms, emotional damages for humiliation, embarrassment, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Martell Harris of The Trial Law Firm, in Pittsburgh.
Defendant Charles Harris is represented by James R. Cooney and Ryan J. Cooney of Cooney Law Offices, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-010350
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com