Quackpot lawsuit

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:57:32 PM3/16/01
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:19:45 GMT, il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:

> mark_p...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
>
>
>**They also called him a Nazi, and other actionable things. These have
>**been referenced and quoted in another thread.
>
>
>Markie dear ... please give your reference of a libel suit won by someone
>being called a "Nazi."

AFAIAC< being called a Nazi is libelous, unless one can prove the
person is a Nazi. I could call you a Nazi, but if you could prove that
you are not, then I have libeled you.

However, if I called hermann Goering a Nazi, he would be hard pressed
to prove I libeled him.

>BTW, are you representing the Medical Deities of Quackdom ?

No, and, IMNSHO, you stil do not have a clue. Your involvement as a
defendant is this suit is demostrative of that.


Keith

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:15:30 PM3/16/01
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:59:32 GMT, Roger Schlafly
<oots6.541$gx6.21...@twister2.starband.net> wrote:

>Stephen Barrett runs the quackwatch.com website.

It looks like all the people involved are limited public persons,
it will be very hard to overcome this legal issue. If these people
appear on TV, radio and perform public speeches they would be public persons.
When a person is a public person they become fair game for their views
in the public arena. Unless they call the person a murderer or child
molester then usually the public person is not protected from libel and
slander.
The Cynthia Kisser (Cult Awareness Network-CAN) Vs Scientology helped keep
this idea alive. Kisser and Scientology members had a vicious bad mouth
campaign going on against each other. Kisser sued and lost because she
is a public person.
An example of a public person suing and winning is Art Bell who was labeled
falsely as a child molester by several people long with radio stations in
Canada and Tennessee.
So basically all the defense has to do is show that the plaintiff is a public
person and their criticism was of their public work. Reading the complaint at
the web site this is what appears to be what has happened. The person running
quackwatch was criticized for his public works which are his web page. The
defendants only need to prove this and move for a summary judgement, if that
fails move to have the public person explained to the jury.
If the plaintiff wins then what the courts are saying if a public person
expresses a view no one can talk about them in a bad light.

--
Best Regards,

Keith (Use Reply-to for email)
------------------------------------------------------------------
A new milestone in Law Practices (From the NYTimes)
Although there are many similarities to other legal movements, some animal
lawyers say there are differences too. For example, several of them, like Ms.
Tischler of the defense fund, said they no longer ate animal products. "My
commitment," she said, "is I don't eat my clients."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Fred & michele

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:21:13 PM3/16/01
to
Ilena:

<"**(a) Dr. Barrett is arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded, emotionally
disturbed,
**professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest
**journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired
gun
**for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged
**in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report,
**and other unspecified acts).">

It would seems that the last 4 accusations (from "Nazi" on) are without
question libelous statements. Freedom of speech does not include publicly
accusing people of easily disproved activities or associations, which is
exactly what the above quoted post does. Those who spew such rubbish
deserve to be silenced. With the right of free speech comes the
responsibility not to slander & libel others.

And what seems to be the fascination with calling other people Nazis? The
term is mis-used & thrown around lightly. Calling another person a Nazi
when they are not is disgusting.

Michele


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:38:44 PM3/16/01
to

**"Mark Probert" <mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote

**> The defendants are the lackeys of Hulda Clark who promotes her 'cure'
**> for cancer.

How interesting that you, Markie are spreading this blatant disinformation
about me.

I am no ones's ~ including Hulda Clark ~ "lackey."

Nor have I ever had any communication with her.

As far as whether I have a clue or not ... the Superior Court Judge in San
Diego claims I did ... and the probablity of prevailing on my lawsuit
against a silicone manufacturer and his Mole who harassed me and spread
this sort of disinformation about me for 5 years ...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22my+case+against%22+author:ilena%40san.rr.com&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=date&as_drrb=quick&as_qdr=&as_mind=15&as_minm=8&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2001&rnum=3&seld=917740484&ic=1

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 1:59:32 PM3/16/01
to
Stephen Barrett runs the quackwatch.com website. He likes to attack
any views that differ from mainstream medicine, but is apparently a
little sensitive to criticism himself. He recently filed a lawsuit against
several of his critics. Here is the complaint for libel:
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

Previously I thought Barrett was sincerely trying to expose health frauds,
but reading the complaint has convinced me that he and his associates
in the suit are major kooks.

The gist of the complaint is that Barrett has been badmouthing various
alternative medicine promoters on the net, and several have had the
temerity to criticize him in return! They called him a "quackpot" and his
associate a "pimple doctor". Most of the allegations are just paraphrases,
so it is hard to tell if the defendants said anything that might be
libelous.

But the remarkable thing is how little Barrett and his associates deny.
The most damaging allegations against Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are
not denied at all. See the above complaint. I don't know the defendants
and don't wish to get involved in this lawsuit, but based on the above
frivolous complaint, I'd say that the defendants are justified in calling
Barrett much worse names than "quackpot".

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:54:45 PM3/16/01
to
mark_p...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:


**He did expose them. Then they libeled him, because they could not
**disprove him.

Really ... and your evidence of this, Jonnie Cochran, is what?

Your Medical Deities had every opportunity to come defend their positions
on the Newsgroups. They both have utilized Usenet when they wanted to post
~ usually libel threats. They had the benefit of telling their viewpoint
publicly ... just like other public figures.

Polevoy had every chance to tell his side of what happened to Christine McPhee.

I spoke with her ... she felt stalked. Talk about suppressing Freedom of
Speech ... he got her cancelled because of his ugly harassment of her
bosses. I just heard he's been whining about a Canadian Radio Show that
won't let his point of view on the air right now ... (anyone have that
rant he wrote to the Cable Television Standards Council ? )

His Gang are trying to disrupt the upcoming Total Health Fair and have
been causing disruption around. I heard Polevoy got someone thrown off
because he was a Nazi sympathizer or something. As a Jewish woman who lost
family in the holocaust, I still believe in true Freedom of Speech ~ even
for those who I abhor their viewpoint.

Their way is to poison people around you ... they make so much and become
such a nuisance they interfere in all relationships ...

Here is what what was reported:

http://www.shared-vision.com/y01m01/storya01.html

EXCERPT:

Shared Vision > January 2001 > Natural Medicine

Natural Medicine:
BC Leads the Way


Across Canada, in Toronto, Ontario, radio host Christine McPhee could
stand for a little of this enthusiasm. In July, her syndicated radio talk
show, "The Touch of Health," was cancelled abruptly because of mounting
and increasingly personal pressure from several disgruntled and
self-proclaimed "Quackwatcher" physicians. "Quackwatch" is the brainchild
of Stephen Barrett, MD, an American doctor on a crusade against what he
perceives to be the rampant quackery of natural medicine. In Canada, the
two main proponents of Barrett's point of view seem to be McPhee's most
ardent attackers, Dr T. Polevoy and Dr P. Marchuk. Polevoy's website,
www.healthwatchers.com, was criticized for being a hate site and was shut
down by regulators at one point, says McPhee.

Despite McPhee's popularity, her show was cancelled for what amounted to
political reasons. "I can't stand the heat," said one of her bosses, in
response to Polevoy's one-man e-mail-and-letter crusade to the station
saying McPhee should be taken to task for promoting alternative medicine.
"I'd have to hire someone part-time just to respond to his mailings." A
colleague of McPhee's, a medical doctor also being persecuted by the
Canadian Quackwatch, says she's received more than 100 e-mails from this
man alone in recent months.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:56:01 PM3/16/01
to

Where did I make these claims about Barrett?


In article <98u049$p...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Fred & michele"
<heal...@concentric.net> wrote:

**Ilena:
**
**<"**(a) Dr. Barrett is arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded, emotionally
**disturbed,
****professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest
****journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired
**gun
****for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged
****in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report,
****and other unspecified acts).">
**
**It would seems that the last 4 accusations (from "Nazi" on) are without
**question libelous statements. Freedom of speech does not include publicly
**accusing people of easily disproved activities or associations, which is
**exactly what the above quoted post does. Those who spew such rubbish
**deserve to be silenced. With the right of free speech comes the
**responsibility not to slander & libel others.
**
**And what seems to be the fascination with calling other people Nazis? The
**term is mis-used & thrown around lightly. Calling another person a Nazi
**when they are not is disgusting.
**
**Michele

Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:06:05 PM3/16/01
to

"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:oots6.541$gx6.21...@twister2.starband.net...

> Stephen Barrett runs the quackwatch.com website. He likes to attack
> any views that differ from mainstream medicine, but is apparently a
> little sensitive to criticism himself. He recently filed a lawsuit against
> several of his critics. Here is the complaint for libel:

No, it's not. It does not include the exhibits incorporated into the
complaint by reference and attached to the complaint but not published at
the site you provide.

The exhibits are obviously some of the e-mails and newsgroup messages which
were published by the defendants.

> http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

I read the complaint but not the exhibits attached to it, since they weren't
published at the above site you provided.

I don't claim to be conversant or knowledgeable in California libel law, but
I am familiar with general principles of libel and defamation. The
complaint makes out a prima facie case under the rules of procedure adopted
by the states, or at least most of them, under the doctrine of notice
pleading.

It's one issue to attack so-called claims outside orthodox medicine, but
quite another to respond by salacious personal attacks.

>
> Previously I thought Barrett was sincerely trying to expose health frauds,
> but reading the complaint has convinced me that he and his associates
> in the suit are major kooks.

You're the major kook because you haven't read the complaint, only part of
it, besides the which, you are obviously not trained in law.

>
> The gist of the complaint is that Barrett has been badmouthing various
> alternative medicine promoters on the net

Them or their claims? And even if he badmouths them, that in itself is not
libel and doesn't justify libel in response.

, and several have had the
> temerity to criticize him in return! They called him a "quackpot" and his
> associate a "pimple doctor". Most of the allegations are just paraphrases,
> so it is hard to tell if the defendants said anything that might be
> libelous.

But YOU don't know and claim that you do.

I'd say you need to go back to Reading 101 for remediation. The way I read
the complaint, even without the exhibits which are much of the meat of the
alleged libel, it disclosed sufficient allegations of libel and libel per se
to withstand motions to dismiss the complaint by the defendants.

>
> But the remarkable thing is how little Barrett and his associates deny.

It will be incumbent on the defendants to deny the allegations, or at least
to prove the truth of their derogatory publications. If I declare to a 3rd
party that you are a fraud and a quack, when in fact you happen to be a
licensed and accredited medical doctor, that, Mr. Newby at Law, is libel.
Practicing medicine without a license is a crime, so I have thereby libeled
you also per se, by stating by implication that you are a criminal.

May I say that in my opinion your license to post in usenet should be
revoked?

> The most damaging allegations against Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are
> not denied at all. See the above complaint. I don't know the defendants
> and don't wish to get involved in this lawsuit, but based on the above
> frivolous complaint, I'd say that the defendants are justified in calling
> Barrett much worse names than "quackpot".
>

Hey, hey. Hear him. Hear him.

Well maybe you'll get to be a party defendant with those intemperate and
asinine remarks. You can't just come into usenet and blow off at the mouth
disputing someone's hard-earned credentials, professional degrees, and
licenses to practice his profession without subjecting yourself to civil
liability. It's called L I B E L, stupid.

A Virginia man questioned the claims of Texas writers, a husband and wife
team, who wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination. In usenet they
counter-attacked personally by calling him a pedophile. Look that lawsuit
up. It was filed in Virginia. The judge let it proceed, and the best I can
tell it is still pending. I hope that Texas couple, if the jury finds them
to be libelers, has to pay out a bundle of cash.

You can't just say anything about anybody on usenet. Well, I take that
back. Prior restraint is inimical to the 1st Amendment. You can rail and
flame and libel all you want. But you might just have to pay a bundle for
the pleasure of it.

**************************************************************
No, 'tis slander,
Whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue
Outvenoms all the worms of Nile, whose breath
Rides on the posting winds, and doth belie
All corners of the world . . .
(W. S., _Cymbeline_)


Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:10:03 PM3/16/01
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:59:32 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>Stephen Barrett runs the quackwatch.com website. He likes to attack
>any views that differ from mainstream medicine, but is apparently a
>little sensitive to criticism himself. He recently filed a lawsuit against
>several of his critics. Here is the complaint for libel:
>http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html
>
>Previously I thought Barrett was sincerely trying to expose health frauds,
>but reading the complaint has convinced me that he and his associates
>in the suit are major kooks.
>
>The gist of the complaint is that Barrett has been badmouthing various
>alternative medicine promoters on the net, and several have had the
>temerity to criticize him in return! They called him a "quackpot" and his
>associate a "pimple doctor". Most of the allegations are just paraphrases,
>so it is hard to tell if the defendants said anything that might be
>libelous.

They also called him a Nazi, and other actionable things. These have


been referenced and quoted in another thread.

>But the remarkable thing is how little Barrett and his associates deny.


>The most damaging allegations against Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are
>not denied at all. See the above complaint. I don't know the defendants
>and don't wish to get involved in this lawsuit, but based on the above
>frivolous complaint, I'd say that the defendants are justified in calling
>Barrett much worse names than "quackpot".

The defendants are the lackeys of Hulda Clark who promotes her 'cure'
for cancer. She claims that cancer is caused by parasites and her
jolt-o-meter kills them off. Interestingly, the jolt-o-meter is much
like the $cientology e-meter. Most curious.

Read some of Tim Bolen's and his sock puppets' rantings.

Roger, law is just another thing where you do not have a firm grip.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:19:45 PM3/16/01
to
mark_p...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:


**They also called him a Nazi, and other actionable things. These have
**been referenced and quoted in another thread.


Markie dear ... please give your reference of a libel suit won by someone
being called a "Nazi."

BTW, are you representing the Medical Deities of Quackdom ?

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:40:04 PM3/16/01
to
"Mark Probert" <mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote

> They also called him a Nazi, and other actionable things. These have
> been referenced and quoted in another thread.

Yawn. Happens on usenet every day.

> > ..., I'd say that the defendants are justified in calling


> >Barrett much worse names than "quackpot".
> The defendants are the lackeys of Hulda Clark who promotes her 'cure'
> for cancer. She claims that cancer is caused by parasites and her
> jolt-o-meter kills them off. Interestingly, the jolt-o-meter is much
> like the $cientology e-meter. Most curious.

Sounds wacky to me. But surely Barrett can expose them without
filing lawsuits.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:35:39 PM3/16/01
to
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote

> > Stephen Barrett runs the quackwatch.com website. He likes to attack
> > any views that differ from mainstream medicine, but is apparently a
> > little sensitive to criticism himself. He recently filed a lawsuit
against
> > several of his critics. Here is the complaint for libel:
> > http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

> No, it's not. It does not include the exhibits incorporated into the
> complaint by reference and attached to the complaint but not published at
> the site you provide.
> The exhibits are obviously some of the e-mails and newsgroup messages
which
> were published by the defendants.

The complaint is from Barrett's web site. He did not post the exhibits.
If he thinks his public case is helped by the exhibits, he should post
them.

I did do a simple usenet search, but nothing looked actionable to me.

> I read the complaint but not the exhibits attached to it, since they
weren't
> published at the above site you provided.
> I don't claim to be conversant or knowledgeable in California libel law,
but
> I am familiar with general principles of libel and defamation. The
> complaint makes out a prima facie case under the rules of procedure
adopted
> by the states, or at least most of them, under the doctrine of notice
> pleading.

What impressed you? Which quotes are libelous? And if so, are the
quotes false?

I just don't see much here, but a harassment suit.

Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:54:54 PM3/16/01
to

And, since you selectively snipped Larry's well reasoned post, no one
will see how you had no answers to his points.

Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:58:18 PM3/16/01
to

He did expose them. Then they libeled him, because they could not
disprove him.


Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 5:14:03 PM3/16/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> I spoke with her ... she felt stalked. Talk about suppressing Freedom of
> Speech ... he got her cancelled because of his ugly harassment of her
> bosses.

I can assure you that more than one person complained about "A Touch of Health",
which was essentially paid advertising in the guise of a talk show. The show was
an embarrassment to the new owners of the station. It was canceled because it was
garbage, and probably a legal liability.


> I heard Polevoy got someone thrown off because he was a Nazi sympathizer or
> something. As a Jewish woman who lost family in the holocaust, I still believe in
> true Freedom of Speech ~ even for those who I abhor their viewpoint.

The Canadian Jewish Congress was instrumental in exposing the fact that Total
Health had invited Mullins, a blatant anti-Semite. Literally thousands of people
were outraged at this invitation, and it received extensive media coverage... it
goes a long way to explain who the people that run that show really are... their
initial response to the complaints was appalling. It took extensive pressure to
get them to revoke the invitation.

--
Kirk Kolas
Ontario Veterinary College
Class of 2002
--
Curriculum Vitae:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/cv.html
A Closer Look at Hulda Clark:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 5:25:41 PM3/16/01
to
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
No. 39
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
376 U.S. 254; 84 S. Ct. 710; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1655; 11 L. Ed. 2d 686; 95
A.L.R.2d 1412; 1 Media L. Rep. 1527
 
January 6, 1964, Argued  
March 9, 1964, Decided * 
* Together with No. 40, Abernathy et al. v. Sullivan, also on certiorari
to the same court, argued January 7, 1964.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html

Here's a case all you Johnnie Cochran's might become familiar with ...

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 5:32:43 PM3/16/01
to
In article <3AB28FE6...@uoguelph.ca>, Kirk Kolas
<kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:


**The Canadian Jewish Congress was instrumental in exposing the fact that Total
**Health had invited Mullins, a blatant anti-Semite. Literally thousands
of people
**were outraged at this invitation, and it received extensive media
coverage... it
**goes a long way to explain who the people that run that show really
are... their
**initial response to the complaints was appalling. It took extensive
pressure to
**get them to revoke the invitation.
**

Thank you for admitting that there was a conspiracy of you HealthFrauds to
silence an opposing viewpoint.

That repulses me ... I am a blatant anti-Barrett and anti-Polevoy and I
have ever right to express those opinions. So do anti-semites ... that's
what free speech is all about ...

it's all well and good when it's your political or religious beliefs that
are de rigeur ... but the concept is tested when you are subjected to
speech you find objectionable ...

Revolting censorship.

I appreciate your admission of this for the public record Kirk.

Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 5:55:57 PM3/16/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> Thank you for admitting that there was a conspiracy of you HealthFrauds to
> silence an opposing viewpoint.

On the contrary, my post was an attempt to inform you that pressure came from all
sides... the Canadian Jewish Congress was the most influential entity in this case,
however media coverage, for example on CFRB, the nation's most listened to radio
station, was probably just as important. One of the hosts was pleading with
listeners to boycott the show unless the invitation was revoked. All of the major
Canadian newspapers carried the story, as well.

Your interpretation of the events is simply silly. There was broad based Canadian
opposition to Mullins speaking at the show. Accusing the "healthfrauds", whoever
they are, of a conspiracy is simply stupid. You seem ignorant of what was really
going on up here in Canada... but you continue to spout off...

Incidentally, the health show removed the speaker after reading his works, not due
to media pressure (or so they claim):

FYI:

http://www.consumerhealth.org/events/events.cfm?ID=12

http://www.canada.com/cgi-bin/cp.asp?f=/news/cp/stories/20010222/national-923034.html

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 6:10:38 PM3/16/01
to
In article <3AB28FE6...@uoguelph.ca>, Kirk Kolas
<kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

**Ilena Rose wrote:
**
**> I spoke with her ... she felt stalked. Talk about suppressing Freedom of
**> Speech ... he got her cancelled because of his ugly harassment of her
**> bosses.
**
**I can assure you that more than one person complained about "A Touch of
Health",
**which was essentially paid advertising in the guise of a talk show. The
show was
**an embarrassment to the new owners of the station. It was canceled
because it was
**garbage, and probably a legal liability.

So you're stating with certainty that the article I posted was a lie and
that the station owner was lying to that reporter?

Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 6:22:06 PM3/16/01
to
So? And so you are Ilena Rosenthal?

The presiding judge will have this case on his mind when he rules whether a
jury can decide the issues of fact in this litigation. Whether it is
apposite is certainly a question, though a medical doctor as a plaintiff in
a tort case of libel is a little different from a crooked Alabama sheriff
suing the NY Times because some of the ad in the newspaper was inaccurate.

I wouldn't put my chips on NYT v. Sullivan if I were you.

Voter-elected county sheriffs are always public figures; medical doctors are
not.

Furthermore, NYT v. Sullivan may have raised the bar in public figure cases,
but it does not mean it's impossible to libel a public figure. Read the
case for yourself.

"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-16030...@24-25-197-25.san.rr.com...

> Here's a case all you Johnnie Cochran's (sic) might become familiar with
...

Do you mean Johnnie Cochranes? I thought there was just one.


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 6:42:43 PM3/16/01
to
In article <yexs6.10153$Q47.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Larry Smith"
<Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote:

**So? And so you are Ilena Rosenthal?
**
**The presiding judge will have this case on his mind when he rules whether a
**jury can decide the issues of fact in this litigation. Whether it is
**apposite is certainly a question, though a medical doctor as a plaintiff in
**a tort case of libel is a little different from a crooked Alabama sheriff
**suing the NY Times because some of the ad in the newspaper was inaccurate.
**
**I wouldn't put my chips on NYT v. Sullivan if I were you.

excuse me?

who are you by the way?


**
**Voter-elected county sheriffs are always public figures; medical doctors are
**not.
**
**Furthermore, NYT v. Sullivan may have raised the bar in public figure cases,
**but it does not mean it's impossible to libel a public figure. Read the
**case for yourself.


I have thank you. More than once.

**
**"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
**news:ilena-16030...@24-25-197-25.san.rr.com...
**> NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
**> No. 39
**> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
**> 376 U.S. 254; 84 S. Ct. 710; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1655; 11 L. Ed. 2d 686; 95
**> A.L.R.2d 1412; 1 Media L. Rep. 1527
**>
**> January 6, 1964, Argued
**> March 9, 1964, Decided *
**> * Together with No. 40, Abernathy et al. v. Sullivan, also on certiorari
**> to the same court, argued January 7, 1964.
**>
**> http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
**>
**> Here's a case all you Johnnie Cochran's (sic) might become familiar with
**...
**
**Do you mean Johnnie Cochranes? I thought there was just one.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 6:41:14 PM3/16/01
to

I understand that this speaker is someone Terrible Terry follows around
and then goes to the media and works up his hate attack against them ...
... he is known to put huge pressure on them ...

how bout posting the letter he wrote whining that his position was not put
on the air to some radio station (anyone have that other than the
HealthFrauds?) which promoted the Total Health Fair and alternative
medical modalities.

I reiterate ... it's disgusting to see such censorship.

I hate it from Jews especially who should know better ...

Laura Schlessinger is one of the worst examples of Jews spreading hatred
against people whose beliefs and habits are different from hers

just found his rant:

http://healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Quack-TV/coren010315complaint.html


what a hypocrite.

i'm nauseated.

here's his Rally Cry on his Hatewebsite:

His word, by the way.

He named it:

Total Health Fair 2001
A Platform for Hate?

Puking in San Diego.


In article <3AB299B7...@uoguelph.ca>, Kirk Kolas
<kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

**Ilena Rose wrote:
**
**> Thank you for admitting that there was a conspiracy of you HealthFrauds to
**> silence an opposing viewpoint.
**
**On the contrary, my post was an attempt to inform you that pressure came
from all
**sides... the Canadian Jewish Congress was the most influential entity in
this case,
**however media coverage, for example on CFRB, the nation's most listened
to radio
**station, was probably just as important. One of the hosts was pleading with
**listeners to boycott the show unless the invitation was revoked. All of
the major
**Canadian newspapers carried the story, as well.
**
**Your interpretation of the events is simply silly. There was broad
based Canadian
**opposition to Mullins speaking at the show. Accusing the
"healthfrauds", whoever
**they are, of a conspiracy is simply stupid. You seem ignorant of what
was really
**going on up here in Canada... but you continue to spout off...
**
**Incidentally, the health show removed the speaker after reading his
works, not due
**to media pressure (or so they claim):
**
**FYI:
**
**http://www.consumerhealth.org/events/events.cfm?ID=12
**
**http://www.canada.com/cgi-bin/cp.asp?f=/news/cp/stories/20010222/national-923034.html
**
**
**
**--
**Kirk Kolas
**Ontario Veterinary College
**Class of 2002
**--
**Curriculum Vitae:
**http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/cv.html
**A Closer Look at Hulda Clark:
**http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 8:43:16 PM3/16/01
to
In article <tvu4btob342ptupjnij12dpr4npel1jaus@news>, "Keith"
<nos...@strongsignals.com> wrote:


** So basically all the defense has to do is show that the plaintiff is a public
**person and their criticism was of their public work. Reading the complaint at
**the web site this is what appears to be what has happened. The person running
**quackwatch was criticized for his public works which are his web page. The
**defendants only need to prove this and move for a summary judgement, if that
**fails move to have the public person explained to the jury.

In California we have strong anti-SLAPP laws ... exactly written for cases
like this in which I am a defendant.

they are claiming I am in "conspiracy" with people I didn't even know
existed ...

Fred & michele

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 10:09:00 PM3/16/01
to
Ilena:

I never said you made those comments. I addressed you after you wrote that
calling someone a Nazi wouldn't be considered libelous in court.

Michele

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 10:25:33 PM3/16/01
to
In article <98ukgc$v...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Fred & michele"
<heal...@concentric.net> wrote:

**Ilena:
**
**I never said you made those comments. I addressed you after you wrote that
**calling someone a Nazi wouldn't be considered libelous in court.
**
**Michele

Thank you.

So far I've been called a "lackey" of someone I don't know and many other
juicy pieces of disinformation spread about me.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 11:08:37 PM3/16/01
to
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote

> Your Medical Deities had every opportunity to come defend their positions
> on the Newsgroups. They both have utilized Usenet when they wanted to post
> ~ usually libel threats. They had the benefit of telling their viewpoint
> publicly ... just like other public figures.

Do they defend their lawsuit in usenet discussions like this one?

> Polevoy had every chance to tell his side of what happened to Christine
McPhee.
> I spoke with her ... she felt stalked. Talk about suppressing Freedom of

Polevoy doesn't even deny stalking her and others in the complaint. See:
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

I get the impression from the complaint that Polevoy is going to admit being
a
stalker, but deny that he violated criminal law in Canada.

> Speech ... he got her cancelled because of his ugly harassment of her
> bosses. I just heard he's been whining about a Canadian Radio Show that
> won't let his point of view on the air right now ... (anyone have that
> rant he wrote to the Cable Television Standards Council ? )

> His Gang are trying to disrupt the upcoming Total Health Fair and ...

This is weird too.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 11:30:46 PM3/16/01
to
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote
> A Virginia man questioned the claims of Texas writers, a husband and wife
> team, who wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination. In usenet they
> counter-attacked personally by calling him a pedophile. Look that lawsuit
> up. It was filed in Virginia. The judge let it proceed, and the best I
can
> tell it is still pending. I hope that Texas couple, if the jury finds
them
> to be libelers, has to pay out a bundle of cash.

Ok, fine, calling someone a pedophile can be libelous. But Barrett,
Polevoy, and Grell do not allege anything like that. They complain
about being called a quackpot, a pimple doctor, and a dimwit.
From the looks of their online materials, these appear to be
accurate statements. Eg, Polevoy has a web site for treating pimples.
Their complaint doesn't say he's not a pimple doctor. I would infer that
he doesn't like to be called a pimple doctor, but that's his problem.
Its not libelous. In the US it is legal to refer to a pimple doctor as a
pimple doctor.

Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 12:23:21 AM3/17/01
to

"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:WLBs6.712$zY1.25...@twister2.starband.net...

> "Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote
> > A Virginia man questioned the claims of Texas writers, a husband and
wife
> > team, who wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination. In usenet they
> > counter-attacked personally by calling him a pedophile. Look that
lawsuit
> > up. It was filed in Virginia. The judge let it proceed, and the best I
> can
> > tell it is still pending. I hope that Texas couple, if the jury finds
> them
> > to be libelers, has to pay out a bundle of cash.
>
> Ok, fine, calling someone a pedophile can be libelous. But Barrett,
> Polevoy, and Grell do not allege anything like that. They complain
> about being called a quackpot, a pimple doctor, and a dimwit.

If those were the only slurs, they might not have have a cause of action.
However, you left out being called professionally incompetent, emotionally
disturbed, and other assertions of criminal violations by one or more of the
plaintiffs.

Read these paraphrased declarations of the defendants, for instance:

Dr. Polevoy is dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed,
professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired
gun for vested interests, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy,
stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic
remarks.
[end quote]

Do you say those allegations are not libelous if found by the jury to have
been made by the defendants and to be untrue?

> From the looks of their online materials, these appear to be
> accurate statements. Eg, Polevoy has a web site for treating pimples.

So? If I call him a pimple doctor, that's not defamatory, but if I say he's
incompetent when in fact he is not, that is definitely defamatory. If I do
that in usenet, that's libelous.

> Their complaint doesn't say he's not a pimple doctor.

Somehow you're confusing a civil complaint with your erroneous ideas that it
requires denials by the plaintiffs. That's not a part of initiating a
lawsuit. You're jumping too far ahead to the trial of the issues of fact,
when all the parties take the stand and utter charges, counter-charges, and
denials. A complaint is a formal charge. You're trying to make it too
complicated when all the rules of procedure require is a short and plain
statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. When discovery
begins -- depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions of fact and
genunieness of documents -- and subpoenas are issued to ISP's requiring them
to give up the identities of the "Does" who also allegedly made defamatory
utterances, that's when it starts to get complicated.

I wish a complete lawsuit were published in misc.legal all the way up to the
day of the trial, and then the trial transcript too. It would take a bloody
horrible space to do it, but maybe some of you lawyer wannabes would get an
inkling of the complexities and twists and turns of a lawsuit.

The other night on TV I saw in action a Missouri lawyer who represented a
man convicted of murder before the appellate courts and thereafter in his
re-trial. The lawyer literally had a U-Haul trailer full of files and
exhibits when that case went back to court. I want people to know how they
oversimplify the laborious drudging work a lawyer does when he competently
prepares his or her case for trial.

I would infer that
> he doesn't like to be called a pimple doctor, but that's his problem.

I don't think he would mind all that much if that were the extent of it.

> Its not libelous. In the US it is legal to refer to a pimple doctor as a
> pimple doctor.

You obviously haven't read the complaint or maybe you read and didn't
comprehend or retain. It took me quite a while to read that bear. It
certainly does make out a case of libel. I don't presently practice law,
but you take the complaint to your own lawyer and see if you can pay him or
her to agree with you that it doesn't make out a case of libel. She won't,
of course.


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 12:38:21 AM3/17/01
to
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote:


**If those were the only slurs, they might not have have a cause of action.
**However, you left out being called professionally incompetent, emotionally
**disturbed, and other assertions of criminal violations by one or more of the
**plaintiffs.

you think calling a public figure who screams "QUACK QUACK QUACK" when he
disagrees with another's opinion "professionally incompetent" is libel?

John

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 3:45:10 AM3/17/01
to
Quackbuster "expert witness" may be charged with PERJURY in
Florida Case...

Opinion by Tim Bolen


Massachusetts "Quackbuster" Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD hopped
on a plane last January, from Boston to Florida, to show up in a
West Palm Beach courtroom as a "surprise rebuttal witness" in the
Florida Dental Board vs Phillips case.

Baratz didn't do well during the deposition, then angrily walked
out when he didn't like the questions he was being asked by
Phillips' attorney. And then, after the dust settled, the story
got even better...

Seems Baratz had a MAJOR problem, during the deposition
testimony, staying within the bounds of truth. So much so that
PERJURY charges may be on the horizon.

Baratz LIED about his qualifications on his CV resume BIG TIME.
Baratz is one of de-licensed MD Stephen Barrett's
(www.quackwatch.com) top lieutenants in the floundering "quackpot
menace."

Baratz testified (under oath) that he was a Consultant for the
Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigation
(OCI), and as such had insider knowledge of FDA policy and
thinking. He sounded impressive and authoritative in his
testimony. It's just that it was all a LIE - The FDA never heard
of Baratz, and I have a letter from the the FDA Office of
Internal Affairs (OIA) to prove what I say.

Of course, now the Court has a copy of the FDA letter...

Not only did Baratz LIE about his relationship with FDA, but he
LIED about almost all of his current employment. In his
deposition Baratz made FANTASTIC claims about his qualifications.


HERE IS WHAT I FOUND when I checked on his claims:

Most significant are Baratz's FALSE CLAIMS to current employment
(on his CV resume):

(1) On page #2, under "Practice and Patient Care Experience,"
Baratz claims to be an "Assistant Clinical Professor of
Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University School
of Medicine,"

I called the Boston University School of Medicine and asked for
Baratz. They have no listing for him. I asked for the Personnel
office, and was directed to the Director of personnel, George
Snowden, who told me that Robert S. Baratz is not an employee of
the University, is NOT ON THE STAFF, and to his knowledge, has no
relationship with the University. Snowden, a long time employee
of the University, had never heard of Baratz, and wished to be
provided with any documents, or data, where Baratz claimed an
affiliation with the University.


(2) On page #5, under "Current Hospital Staff Appointments," I
called all of the three hospitals listed and asked for Baratz:

(A) Carney Hospital, after several telephone calls, responded
that Baratz was definitely NOT "on Staff" as he claims, but was
restricted to a limited relationship called "Provisional
Associate," which, it was explained to me, meant that he could,
with permission, bring a patient to the hospital. The hospital
did not know of ANY INCIDENT in which Baratz ever brought a
patient to the hospital.

(B) Martha's Vineyard Hospital had no listing for him, knew of no
way to reach him, and DID NOT have him on their staff directory.
They did not know who he was.

(C) Jordan Hospital had no listing for him, and their response to
me was "I've never heard of him."


(3) On page #4, under "Other Professional Experience and
Employment," Baratz claims "Director, IMCSI (Computer Based
Medical Device Tracking systems)..."

I called two different nationwide telephone directory services
and could get no telephone number for a company, or corporation
named IMCSI, nor the longer version of it's name (International
Medical Consultation Services Inc.). The Internet had no listing
for any such company; no website, nothing.


(4) MOST IMPORTANT - On page #4, under "Other Professional
Experience and Employment," Baratz claims "Consultant, United
States Government, U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI).

I called the FDA OCI in Washington DC and was referred to the FDA
Office of Internal Affairs, where I spoke to Assistant Special
Agent in Charge Paul F. Gebicke. Mr. Gebicke requested that I
FAX to him, immediately, portions of the documents where Baratz
indicated his relationship with the FDA. I faxed to him the
entire seven page CV, and relevant pages concerning Baratz's
claim to a relationship with FDA, in the Baratz deposition.

Mr. Gebicke responded to me by telephone and indicated that his
office had investigated Baratz's claims (as per the documents
faxed to them), and that they would respond to my request by
letter. They did so, faxing me a letter dated March 2, 2001,
signed by Donald L. Briggs, Special Agent In Charge, FDA Office
of Internal Affairs.

In short, BARATZ's FDA CLAIMS ARE A FRAUD.

FDA Brigg's letter indicates that his office investigated five
claims made by Baratz either in his CV, or in his testimony
recorded on the deposition, as follows:

"Between February 28, 2001 and March 02, 2001, Special Agents of
the FDA OIA made the following inquiries that failed to reveal
Baratz either has/has had a consultant or contractual
relationship with the FDA in general, or specifically with the
FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), the law enforcement
branch of the FDA.

On 2/28/01, an OIA SA spoke with OCI Assistant Director (AD)
Frank Forgione who said no records could be located that support
the assertion that Baratz has ever been a 'consultant' to OCI."

"On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) representative Glenna Caffrey, who is responsible
for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA panels on drug
matters. No records could be located that support the assertion
that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist, guest panelist, or
participant of record in CDER issues."

"On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Device and
Radiological Health (CDRH) representative Kathleen Walker, who is
responsible for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA
panels on device matters. No records could be located that
support the assertion that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist,
guest panelist, or participant of record in CDRH issues."

"On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Biologic Evaluation
and Research (CBER) representative William Freas, who is
responsible for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA
panels on drug matters. No records could be located that support
the assertion that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist, guest
panelist, or participant of record in CBER issues."

"The above inquiries were made with respect to assertions that
Robert S. Baratz is a medical doctor and DDS (dentist) who
alleges a relationship with the FDA as a result of his alleged
expertise in the area of general Dentistry, drugs, and devices
related to this field."


(5) On page #4, under "Other Professional Experience and
Employment," Baratz claims "Consultant NBC News, New York."

I called NBC News, New York. They never heard of him, and told
me he was definitely NOT a consultant to them.


(6) On page #4, under "Other Professional Experience and
Employment," Baratz claims "Consultant ABC News, New York."

I called ABC News, New York. They never heard of him, and told
me he was definitely NOT a consultant to them.


(7) On page #4, under "Other Professional Experience and
Employment," Baratz claims "Consultant, State of California,
Office of the Attorney General, and Board of Dental Examiners."

First off, there is no such organization in California called
"The Board of Dental Examiners." The licensing agency for
dentists in California is called the "California Dental Board."
I called them, they researched their records carefully, and
responded that they had never heard of Baratz, he was not now,
nor ever had been, a consultant for the State of California.

No other State agency we contacted (listed by Baratz on his CV)
could find any record of him as a consultant.


(8) On page #1, under "Skills: Business Development,
Entrepreneurial Activities, Administration, and Organization"
Baratz claims "Founder of two corporations in medical device
area. One (Polymedica) is now >$100M on NASDAQ, other (IMCSI) in
growth stages."

I called Polymedica and asked for Baratz. They had no office or
phone number for him. I told them that Baratz claims to be THE
FOUNDER of the company, and they then referred me to the CEO, who
called me back, and said that he did know Baratz, but that he had
no knowledge of whether Baratz had any financial interest in
Polymedica.


(9) On page #2, under "Communications," Baratz claims "National
spokesperson for professional organization (American Dental
Association) for scientific matters."

Organizations, especially a large one like the American Dental
Association (ADA), do not lightly give, or allow,
"spokespersons." I called the American Dental Association main
office in Chicago, Illinois, and asked for Baratz, or the office
for "spokespersons." I was routed around the office to several
people who would be familiar with anyone who acted as a
"spokesperson" for the ADA. No one I talked to at the ADA had
ever heard of him, or had any record of him acting as a
"spokesperson." I examined the ADA's website carefully, and
could not find Baratz listed anywhere in their data base.

I wonder if Bobbie got his witness fees up front?...


Tim Bolen
JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group
jur...@yahoo.com


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 5:53:46 AM3/17/01
to
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote
> > Ok, fine, calling someone a pedophile can be libelous. But Barrett,
> > Polevoy, and Grell do not allege anything like that. They complain
> > about being called a quackpot, a pimple doctor, and a dimwit.
> If those were the only slurs, they might not have have a cause of action.
> However, you left out being called professionally incompetent, emotionally
> disturbed, and other assertions of criminal violations by one or more of
the
> plaintiffs.
> Read these paraphrased declarations of the defendants, for instance:
> Dr. Polevoy is dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed,
> professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired
> gun for vested interests, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy,
> stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic
> remarks.
> [end quote]
> Do you say those allegations are not libelous if found by the jury to have
> been made by the defendants and to be untrue?

I'd have to see what the defendants actually said. None of those are
quotes. Calling someone a Nazi might be libel if it meant a claim that
Polevoy served under Hitler. But I think it is quite likely that the
defendants clearly meant something else if they called Polevoy a Nazi.
The quotes about Polevoy are things like:
"He is an embarrassment to the medical profession."
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

This is just not libel.

You might be assuming that the plaintiffs have a better case than is
stated in the complaint. Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't think the
plaintiffs have even helped themselves. I assumed that Barrett was
a physician of some sort, but in the complaint he describes himself
as a "medical journalist and consultant".

> > From the looks of their online materials, these appear to be
> > accurate statements. Eg, Polevoy has a web site for treating pimples.
> So? If I call him a pimple doctor, that's not defamatory, but if I say
he's
> incompetent when in fact he is not, that is definitely defamatory. If I
do
> that in usenet, that's libelous.

Incompetent at what? Popping pimples or exposing health frauds?
The complaint does not say.

> > Their complaint doesn't say he's not a pimple doctor.
> Somehow you're confusing a civil complaint with your erroneous ideas that
it
> requires denials by the plaintiffs. That's not a part of initiating a
> lawsuit. You're jumping too far ahead to the trial of the issues of fact,
> when all the parties take the stand and utter charges, counter-charges,
and
> denials. A complaint is a formal charge. You're trying to make it too
> complicated when all the rules of procedure require is a short and plain
> statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. When discovery
> begins -- depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions of fact
and
> genunieness of documents -- and subpoenas are issued to ISP's requiring
them
> to give up the identities of the "Does" who also allegedly made defamatory
> utterances, that's when it starts to get complicated.

Usually a complaint for libel will quote the libelous statement, and
allege facts that imply that the allegation is false. This does neither.
Perhaps the plaintiffs have enough specificity under the Calif rules.
We'll see. But if the object is preserving their reputations, then they
have done a miserable job.

> The other night on TV I saw in action a Missouri lawyer who represented a
> man convicted of murder before the appellate courts and thereafter in his
> re-trial. The lawyer literally had a U-Haul trailer full of files and
> exhibits when that case went back to court. I want people to know how
they
> oversimplify the laborious drudging work a lawyer does when he competently
> prepares his or her case for trial.

I presume the plaintiffs' real motives here are to force the defendants
to hire expensive lawyers and bury them in paperwork.

In this case, the defendants' messages were posted online. Its not real
complicated. Barrett could put all the messages on his web site if he
wanted to. He chooses not to, and I question his sincerity in this. My
impression is that whatever the defendants said, they struck a nerve,
and Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are just retaliating.

Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 7:48:26 AM3/17/01
to
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-16030...@24-25-197-25.san.rr.com...

There is a difference between stating your opinion and giving demonstrably
false defamatory information (like Tim Bolen's accusation that Baratz is not
on the faculty of BU).

Jeff Utz


Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 7:41:46 AM3/17/01
to
John,
Try going to this page from boston university:

http://www.bu.edu/bulletins/med/item09/

Go to the listing of faculty in the department of emergency medicine.
See any familar names?

Don't beleive everything you read.

Jeff Utz

"John" <Wha...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:98v7q4$eos$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 3:34:43 PM3/17/01
to
Jeffrey wrote

> > you think calling a public figure who screams "QUACK QUACK QUACK" when
he
> > disagrees with another's opinion "professionally incompetent" is libel?
> There is a difference between stating your opinion and giving demonstrably
> false defamatory information (like Tim Bolen's accusation that Baratz is
not
> on the faculty of BU).

Yes, there is, but the complaint doesn't say anything about the BU faculty
accusation. Baratz is not a party to it.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 5:17:23 PM3/17/01
to
In article <DTPs6.12$791.3...@twister2.starband.net>, "Roger Schlafly"
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

**Jeffrey wrote
**> > you think calling a public figure who screams "QUACK QUACK QUACK" when
**he
**> > disagrees with another's opinion "professionally incompetent" is libel?
**> There is a difference between stating your opinion and giving demonstrably
**> false defamatory information (like Tim Bolen's accusation that Baratz is
**not
**> on the faculty of BU).

that is true ... but it's not "libel" as defined for public figures ...
and certainly not in issues as huge and encompassing as medical freedom
... and the silicone catastrophe.


**Yes, there is, but the complaint doesn't say anything about the BU faculty
**accusation. Baratz is not a party to it.

exactly.

Jay A. Hafner, D.C.

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 1:38:59 AM3/18/01
to
The problem I always had with their site in the '90's was that they would put up
several TITLES of attacks against one profession/technique/ whatever. Some of
the TITLES would have links to actual articles, while others would simply be
unfounded propaganda and fear tactics (much like we alternative practitioners
like to use against the medics ;)

Either way, Barrett and his cronies should have been sued then..now they're
getting too sly to get caught..but atleast someone continues to attack their
propaganda articles. I consider them to be on the lower-level-equivalent of
"Chick Publications."


Jay H

Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 3:41:39 PM3/18/01
to

"Jay A. Hafner, D.C." <jayh...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3AB45803...@uswest.net...

> The problem I always had with their site in the '90's was that they would
put up
> several TITLES of attacks against one profession/technique/ whatever.
Some of
> the TITLES would have links to actual articles, while others would simply
be
> unfounded propaganda and fear tactics (much like we alternative
practitioners
> like to use against the medics ;)
>
> Either way, Barrett and his cronies should have been sued then

For what? Pick a cause of action. If I attack chiropractic, do you have a
cause of action against me, as opposed to my launching a personal attack on
you personally by stating that your license has been revoked or that you are
incompetent in your profession? That's the point here. If I made the
latter attack, it would be actionable. The former would not be in most
cases.

Apparently Barrett and his colleagues have attacked alternative medicine,
and people in that field have counter-attacked with libel.

I give you another hypothetical, which is really quite real and common in
usenet. The usenet poster assails organized religion or one of the
denominations like Roman Catholicism, blasts the Bible, and denounces the
Papacy. Thereafter, adherents of that faith reply with insults, derision,
and hateful name-calling. Now we haven't gotten to defamation yet, but soon
the heat is turned up and the religious characters then turn to attacking
the poster's personal attributes: He's light in the loafers, or he surfs in
the nambla sites, or he hangs out at men's restrooms or stalks little boys,
or he has had his professional license revoked, or he is a fraud by claiming
he is formally educated in a field or is accredited in one of the
professions when in fact he is not. Those tawdry assaults on the person go
to libel and are actionable at law. That's what Barrett's lawsuit is
about -- libel.

Now what would the suit YOU propose be about, or are you just babbling in a
newsgroup where you don't have any expertise and want people to know that
you are a DC?


..now they're
> getting too sly to get caught

Caught at what? Be specific or be damned.

..but atleast someone continues to attack their
> propaganda articles. I consider them to be on the lower-level-equivalent
of
> "Chick Publications."

Now what you've said here is not defamatory, most likely, since you've
compared their articles to Jack Chick funnybooks (I think). But if you
claim the doctors are incompetent or emotionally disturbed or de-licensed,
when in fact they are not you have definitely personally attacked them and
thereby committed a tort for which they can attach you for damages.
>
>
> Jay H


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 3:52:18 PM3/18/01
to
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote:

**Apparently Barrett and his colleagues have attacked alternative medicine,
**and people in that field have counter-attacked with libel.

i'm not in the alt med field and i have never libeled them.

Just because they say it's so ... doesn't make it so.

Rich

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 3:55:15 PM3/18/01
to

Quite correct Ilena. A judge or jury will decide the case once it is
brought to trial. Good luck. You will need it.

PS Just because *you* say that you have never libeled them does not
make it so *either*. And *you* have a vested interest in making that
statement which is self serving.

Aloha,

Rich

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

If you don't lie then you never have to remember
anything.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:08:54 PM3/18/01
to
Rich <k...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


**Quite correct Ilena. A judge or jury will decide the case once it is
**brought to trial. Good luck. You will need it.

again you're making assumptions ... that the case will go to trial.

i firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence
critics and waste their resources ...

just like many of their their bully suits have been and are

Rich

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:14:00 PM3/18/01
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:08:54 GMT, il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:

> Rich <k...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>**Quite correct Ilena. A judge or jury will decide the case once it is
>**brought to trial. Good luck. You will need it.
>
>again you're making assumptions ... that the case will go to trial.
>
>i firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence
>critics and waste their resources ...

You can believe what you like Ilena. But you are one of the defendants
so your statements are self serving.

Aloha,

Rich

>
>just like many of their their bully suits have been and are

--------------------------------------------

Jay A. Hafner, D.C.

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:39:02 PM3/18/01
to
Actually, his TITLE statements that say that they lead to further comments, but
don't, are libel.

Whether or not he was attacked back is unknown to me. I stopped following his
anger in 99.


jayh

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:49:19 PM3/18/01
to
In article <3AB52AF6...@uswest.net>, "Jay A. Hafner, D.C."
<jayh...@uswest.net> wrote:

**Actually, his TITLE statements that say that they lead to further
comments, but
**don't, are libel.
**

scuse me ... that does that mean?

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 5:56:21 PM3/18/01
to
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:

>i firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence
>critics and waste their resources ...

Please explain how it is silencing you. You haven't shut up about it
since the suit was first mentioned.

Now here's something to think about. When you posted Bolen's rubbish
did you believe it to be true? Consider your answer carefully.

You should also ask your lawyer to explain what STFU means.

-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

Rich

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 6:14:09 PM3/18/01
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:56:21 GMT, Peter Bowditch <pet...@ratbags.com>
wrote:

>il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
>
>>i firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence
>>critics and waste their resources ...
>
>Please explain how it is silencing you. You haven't shut up about it
>since the suit was first mentioned.

It does discourage her from making continued libelous statements
however. But this is a good thing.


>
>Now here's something to think about. When you posted Bolen's rubbish
>did you believe it to be true? Consider your answer carefully.
>
>You should also ask your lawyer to explain what STFU means.

Hopefully Ilena has hired a good attorney. Unfortunately she does not
seem to be heeding his advice to keep silent. Perhaps she is acting
pro se. In that case a prayer to Saint Jude might be in order.

Aloha,

Rich


>
>-------------------------------------
>Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
>Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
>Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
>Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

--------------------------------------------

Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 10:43:25 PM3/18/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> "I am a blatant anti-Barrett and anti-Polevoy and I have ever right to express
> those opinions."

This statement explains why you appear to have no qualms about repeating
potentially libelous statements about them on USENET.

--
Kirk Kolas
Ontario Veterinary College
Class of 2002


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 10:52:50 PM3/18/01
to
In article <3AB58016...@uoguelph.ca>, Kirk Kolas
<kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

**Ilena Rose wrote:
**
**> "I am a blatant anti-Barrett and anti-Polevoy and I have ever right to
express
**> those opinions."
**
**This statement explains why you appear to have no qualms about repeating
**potentially libelous statements about them on USENET.


What potentially libelous statements have I repeated?

Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 10:49:53 PM3/18/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> I understand that this speaker is someone Terrible Terry follows around
> and then goes to the media and works up his hate attack against them ...
> ... he is known to put huge pressure on them ...

And you get this understanding from where, exactly? I figure that Farber at the CJC might
be the person more likely to warn Canadians about this type of speaker.

I find it somewhat amusing that Polevoy makes you fume like this. In some respect, you are
both activists... you against one corporate interest (implants), him against another
(tobacco). He speaks out regularly on the subject.

Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 11:07:15 PM3/18/01
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:39:02 -0700, "Jay A. Hafner, D.C."
<jayh...@uswest.net> wrote:

>Actually, his TITLE statements that say that they lead to further comments, but
>don't, are libel.

I suggest that you learn what libel is, and who (not what) can be
libeled, and how.

Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 11:51:11 PM3/18/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> "I firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence


> critics and waste their resources ..."

I understand your point, and I am no legal expert, but this doesn't sound
like a SLAPP suit to me.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund identifies the following characteristics of
a SLAPP suit:

1.the plaintiff is usually a mid to large-sized company
2.the suit claims enormous damages and generally seeks and injunction
3.the defendant has been speaking out with some success in an attempt to
influence government policy or public perception; and
4.the issue is one of public interest or concern

How does three professionals attempting to defend their reputations
suddenly transform into a "classic SLAPP suit"?

Mark Probert

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 11:53:45 PM3/18/01
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 04:51:11 GMT, Kirk Kolas <kko...@uoguelph.ca>
wrote:

Illie hopes to spin it by calling it a "classic SLAPP suit" and rasie
her importance in the scheme of things.

'Markie"

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 12:12:27 AM3/19/01
to
In article <3AB58FF8...@uoguelph.ca>, Kirk Kolas
<kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

**Ilena Rose wrote:
**
**> "I firmly believe that it is a classic SLAPP suit designed to silence
**> critics and waste their resources ..."
**
**I understand your point, and I am no legal expert, but this doesn't sound
**like a SLAPP suit to me.
**
**The Sierra Legal Defence Fund identifies the following characteristics of
**a SLAPP suit:
**
**1.the plaintiff is usually a mid to large-sized company
**2.the suit claims enormous damages and generally seeks and injunction
**3.the defendant has been speaking out with some success in an attempt to
**influence government policy or public perception; and
**4.the issue is one of public interest or concern
**
**How does three professionals attempting to defend their reputations
**suddenly transform into a "classic SLAPP suit"?
**
**--
**Kirk Kolas
**Ontario Veterinary College
**Class of 2002


spare us.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 12:27:32 AM3/19/01
to
pet...@ratbags.com wrote:


**You should also ask your lawyer to explain what STFU means.
**

that's what SLAPP's are all about ... trying to shut up critics.

Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 12:32:01 AM3/19/01
to
Kirk Kolas <kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:


**How does three professionals attempting to defend their reputations
**suddenly transform into a "classic SLAPP suit"?
**
*

quackwatch has 31 lawyers.


grell (who i never knew existed before he sued me) is but one ...

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 5:32:50 AM3/19/01
to
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-18030...@24-25-197-25.san.rr.com...

> Kirk Kolas <kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> **How does three professionals attempting to defend their reputations
> **suddenly transform into a "classic SLAPP suit"?
> quackwatch has 31 lawyers.
> grell (who i never knew existed before he sued me) is but one ...

Why? Are they trying to expose quack lawyers? <g>

But anyway, it doesn't sound like 3 professionals trying to defend
their reputations. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist!

As for Grell, the complaint against him says:

28. The specific derogations involving Attorney Grell include:

(a) He is a courtroom dimwit.
(b) He filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Barrett in the wrong state.
(c) He filed a lawsuit against Hulda Clark in the wrong country.
(d) He is incompetent at writing lawsuits.
(e) He fits the profile of the "typical quackpot."
(f) He filed a false complaint against Hulda Clark with the FBI in San
Diego.
(g) The State Bar should hold a hearing to judge his competence.

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html

Does Grell really think that these are all libelous? If so, then he is a
dimwit

and he didn't help his reputation by filing the lawsuit.

Kirk Kolas

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 9:39:26 AM3/19/01
to
Ilena Rose wrote:

> **> "I am a blatant anti-Barrett and anti-Polevoy and I have ever right to
> express
> **> those opinions."
> **
> **This statement explains why you appear to have no qualms about repeating
> **potentially libelous statements about them on USENET.
>
> What potentially libelous statements have I repeated?

I am not sure how many of Tim Bolen's "Opinion" pieces you have posted to the
internet, but from what I understand, repeating libelous statements can be
considered libel, particularly if it is done so with malice. Stating that you
are "a blatant anti-Barrett and anti-Polevoy" may go a long way to demonstrate
malice.

Of course, I know next to nothing about law. I do know that you should
probably not be talking about the case.

John

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 4:20:42 PM3/19/01
to

"Jeffrey Peter, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> Don't beleive everything you read.
>
> Jeff Utz
>

You think I can read? Thanks!

John

"As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the
worth of vaccination." ---George Bernard Shaw


Ilena Rose

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 4:28:00 PM3/19/01
to
In article <995srg$d6d$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "John"
<Wha...@btinternet.com> wrote:

**"Jeffrey Peter, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
**>
**> Don't beleive everything you read.
**>
**> Jeff Utz
**>
**
**You think I can read? Thanks!
**
**John


John ... do you know who he really is?

he's huge on the ad hominems but refuses to reveal his own identity.

Larry Smith

unread,
Mar 19, 2001, 6:32:50 PM3/19/01
to

Roger Schlafly gurgled as usual:

> "Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ilena-18030...@24-25-197-25.san.rr.com...
> > Kirk Kolas <kko...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> > **How does three professionals attempting to defend their reputations
> > **suddenly transform into a "classic SLAPP suit"?
> > quackwatch has 31 lawyers.
> > grell (who i never knew existed before he sued me) is but one ...
>

> [...]


>
> But anyway, it doesn't sound like 3 professionals trying to defend
> their reputations. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist!

Obviously you know absolutely nothing of libel law. Most usenet windbags
such as yourself know when the line is crossed but you're brainless. If you
think a retired medical doctor cannot be defamed in his professional capacity,
you're hopelessly stupid.

>
>
> As for Grell, the complaint against him says:
>
> 28. The specific derogations involving Attorney Grell include:
>
> (a) He is a courtroom dimwit.

I. e., meaning he is unable to try a case, which is libelous.

>
> (b) He filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Barrett in the wrong state.

I. e., meaning professional incompetence.

>
> (c) He filed a lawsuit against Hulda Clark in the wrong country.

Again, a clear implication of professional incompetence.

>
> (d) He is incompetent at writing lawsuits.

Failure at drafting a complaint would be basic incompetence on the part of a
lawyer, especially since the rules of civil procedure render "lawsuit writing"
rather simple.

>
> (e) He fits the profile of the "typical quackpot."

In other words, this says that he is a buffoon in his profession, which is
ipso facto libelous.

>
> (f) He filed a false complaint against Hulda Clark with the FBI in San
> Diego.

Meaning that he committed an act of turpitude by charging someone with a crime
when he knew she was not guilty. This charges him with commission of a crime.

>
> (g) The State Bar should hold a hearing to judge his competence.

In other words, his license to practice law should be pulled because he's
mentally incapable to practice law.

>
>
> http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html
>
> Does Grell really think that these are all libelous?

I can't imagine anyone in the legal profession or any judge in a court of law
*NOT* viewing these allegations as libelous. They are about as defamatory to
the man's ability to pursue his livelihood as you could get without calling
him a bank robber or lunatic.

> If so, then he is a
> dimwit

An ignorant nitwit calling someone a dimwit. LOL! I bet he's forgotten more
law than you'll ever know. And I bet he hasn't forgotten much.

>
>
> and he didn't help his reputation by filing the lawsuit.

Give it time. The issue hasn't even been joined yet. Besides, nitwit, maybe
he's being paid.