Quackpot lawsuit
Mark Probert
> 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
<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
<"**(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
**"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 ...
Roger Schlafly
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
**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
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
"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
>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
**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
> 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
> > 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.
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
And, since you selectively snipped Larry's well reasoned post, no one
will see how you had no answers to his points.
Mark Probert
He did expose them. Then they libeled him, because they could not
disprove him.
Kirk Kolas
> 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
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
<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
> 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
**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
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
<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
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
<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
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
<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
> 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
> 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
> "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
**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
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