|
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
December 7, 2004
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=defamationforrdp1102410513&area=news
Civil rights groups have warned the California Supreme Court that an
adverse ruling in a case concerning the liability of an individual who
posted a statement made by another person on an internet newsgroup
would chill the free speech rights of internet users.
The case concerns a defamation suit brought against Ilena Rosenthal,
Director of the Humantics Foundation in San Diego, a breast implant
awareness organisation, after she re-posted a third-partys statements
on the internet. These, it was alleged, defamed Terry Polevoy, an
opponent of quackery, health and diet fraud.
The case turns on both the interpretation of a provision (Section 230)
in the US Communications Decency Act, which grants immunity from suit
to those who provide material on the internet that was written by
others, and a January ruling by the California Court of Appeal for the
First District that found Rosenthal guilty of defamation.
Rosenthal appealed to the State Supreme Court, and in April the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Lawyers for Polevoy argue that Rosenthal is liable because posting the
comments makes her a "developer" of the information in question, and
she therefore becomes the legal equivalent of its creator for the
purposes of the lawsuit.
But in November civil rights groups the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
(ACLU) filed a friend of the court brief, supporting Rosenthals case.
In their brief, EFF and the ACLU argued that prior to the Appeals
Court ruling, similar attempts to eliminate the protections created in
the Act had been almost universally rejected.
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the implications for
free speech on-line are far-reaching, said the brief. Bloggers could
be held liable when they quote other people's writing, and web site
owners could be held liable for what people say in message boards on
their sites. The end result, according to the groups, is that many
people would simply cease to publish or host web sites.
"Every other jurisdiction addressing Section 230 has given effect to
Congress' broad protections and internet speech has flourished as a
result," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "The Court of Appeals
upset this settled law and we are simply asking the California Supreme
Court to set things right."
"Section 230 protects the ordinary people who use the internet and
e-mail to pass on items of interest written by others, free from the
fear of potentially ruinous lawsuits filed by those who don't like
what was said about them," said ACLU Staff Attorney Ann Brick.
"The vitality of the internet would quickly dissipate if the posting
of content written by others created liability. The impulse to
self-censor would be unavoidable," she added.
See: The text of the brief (29-page PDF)
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Defamation_abuse/Barrett_v_Clark/20041124_BarrettAmicusFinal.pdf
See also: No defamation for posting 3rd party statements, says US
judge, OUT-LAW News, 31/07/2001
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=nodefamationforpo996584441&area=news
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
|
| |
| |
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
December 7, 2004
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=defamationforrdp1102410513&area=news
Civil rights groups have warned the California Supreme Court that an
adverse ruling in a case concerning the liability of an individual who
posted a statement made by another person on an internet newsgroup
would chill the free speech rights of internet users.
Well, G O L L L L L Y.....was the statement she repeated
any worst than the loving and supportive crap she's spued forth
as a self-appointed terrorizing-activist for the women damaged
by silicone breast implants:
1) "YOU DISGUSTING FAT, UGLY PIGFACE"--Ilena Rosenthal sending
messages of love thru email to an implant survivor.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=UGLY+PIGFACE+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1204021607460001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=26
2) "That wasn't "love" I was sending to your fellow disgusting fellow
Networker friend, [implanted woman] ... the ugliest, most vile
creature God ever created, Traitor to the Implanted Women."--Ilena
Rosenthal
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=That+wasn%27t+%22love%22+I+was+sending++group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=ilena-2901020759070001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=9
3) "Previous to telling her to "F*CK OFF" "--Ilena Rosenthal expressing
loving thoughts about a breast
implant woman.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Previous+to+telling+her+to++group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=9713e020.0312201220.513cc070%40posting.google.com&rnum=9
4) "The morning I sent her the F*CK off message ..."--Ilena Rosenthal,
Director of The Humantics
Foundation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=The+morning+I+sent+her+the+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=19faaec.0312
191034.6138c21d%40posting.google.com&rnum=15
5) "The quotes I did say were not with "love'"--Ilena Rosenthal, Director of
The Humantics Foundation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=The+quotes+I+did+say+were+not+with++group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=9713e020.0312201220.513cc070%40posting.google.com&rnum=9
6) "I believe if more men could fulfill their own sexual needs there would
be less sexual predators
around."-- Ilena
Rosenthal pushing her mentor, Anthony Zaffuto's book, "Solo Male Ecstasy" (A
guide to masturbation
techniques).
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=I+believe+if+more+men+could+fulfill+their+own+sexual+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=20031218123456.22081.00002589%40mb-m17.aol.com&rnum=2
7) ".....while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how
smart they are."-- More Ilena
Roshenthal thoughts of
masturbation techniques.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ilena-1407011252350001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com
8) "THE WORSE THING THAT DR DOBKE EVER DID WAS KEEP YOU ALIVE"--Ilena
Rosenthal, sensitive and caring director of Humantics Foundation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=THE+WORSE+THING+THAT+DR+DOBKE+EVER+DID+WAS&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-0509010902340001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=15
9) "One more of these Missives with your lies and i'll call David and
the rest of your sons "-- Ilena Rosenthal, in a fit of
humanitarianism.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=One+more+of+these+Missives+with+your+lies&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-2108011523540001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=83
10) "Everyone got to see that you have the fashion sense of a blind,
homeless, beggar"--Ilena Rosenthall commenting on the appearance of a
breast implant survivor, shortly after Ilena herself, wore the same
"flower child" dress for two consecutive days, at the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) hearings at the National Academy of Sciences in
Washington DC.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=see+that+you+have+the+fashion+sense+of+a+blind+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&safe=active&selm=ilena-2505002224430001%40dt012na9.san.rr.com&rnum=5
11) "Your husband has to wake up to you every morning ~ Blech!"--Ilena
Rosenthal, in the midst of a tirade with a breast implanted woman.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=see+that+you+have+the+fashion+sense+of+a+blind+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-2505002224430001%40dt012na9.san.rr.com&rnum=5
12) "FUCK OFF"--Ilena Rosenthal in a "possible" quote from her mentor,
Anthony Zafuto's books & videos, "Solo Male Ecstasy," and/or "The
Complete Guide to Oral Lovemaking."
13) "i never used vulgar language on Trash Talk"--Ilena Rosenthal in
the midst of forgetfulness, or having a 'senior' moment.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=i+never+used+vulgar+language+on+Trash+Talk+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=20000627011650.15983.00005025%40nso-fk.aol.com&rnum=2
14) "Place me in the company of those who seek the Truth, and deliver
me from those who have found it." -- Ilena Rose (talk.atheism 1995)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=those+who+have+found+it+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=20010716030030.04179.00001213%40nso-fp.aol.com&rnum=2
15) "Thank God I'm an atheist."--Ilena Rose
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Thank+God+I%27m+an+atheist&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1608012252560001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=2
16) "i don't want him, or his a$$ mooning me ~ does she really find
this beneficial to the women harmed by implants?"--Ilena Rosenthal in
the midst of fantacizing about the husband of a breast implanted
woman.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mooning+me+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1806000212140001%40dt011n39.san.rr.com&rnum=2
17) "O'Leary too, couldn't control his outbursts about me ... even in
the sexual realm."--Ilena Rosenthal believing she is hearing sweet
nothings, whispered in her ear.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=couldn%27t+control+his+outbursts+about+me+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1706011506210001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=2
18) "They both have spouses ... yet they can't stop their obsessions
of me."--Ilena Rosenthal enraptured by a spell of Narcissism.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=yet+they+can%27t+stop+their+obsessions+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1706011506210001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=1
19)"...they can spend 6 years snooping into my life, making up lies
about me, telling everyone I am a fraud and ripping
|
| |
| |
Ilena Rose wrote:
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
December 7, 2004
This is getting to be to damned redundant and could be considered spam.
|
| |
| |
Ilena Rose wrote:
This is getting to be to damned redundant and could be considered spam.
Google the writer and see how she stifles free speech. She has contacted
spouses, employers, etc. of those with whom she disagrees or those who
criticize her abuses. She makes up defamatory webpages about people.
|
| |
| |
Yes, several amicus briefs have been filed with the California Supreme
Court.
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
Defamation for 3rd party statements: case continues
December 7, 2004
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=defamationforrdp1102410513&area=news
Civil rights groups have warned the California Supreme Court that an
adverse ruling in a case concerning the liability of an individual who
posted a statement made by another person on an internet newsgroup
would chill the free speech rights of internet users.
The case concerns a defamation suit brought against Ilena Rosenthal,
Director of the Humantics Foundation in San Diego, a breast implant
awareness organisation, after she re-posted a third-party's statements
on the internet. These, it was alleged, defamed Terry Polevoy, an
opponent of "quackery, health and diet fraud".
The case turns on both the interpretation of a provision (Section 230)
in the US Communications Decency Act, which grants immunity from suit
to those who provide material on the internet that was written by
others, and a January ruling by the California Court of Appeal for the
First District that found Rosenthal guilty of defamation.
Rosenthal appealed to the State Supreme Court, and in April the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Lawyers for Polevoy argue that Rosenthal is liable because posting the
comments makes her a "developer" of the information in question, and
she therefore becomes the legal equivalent of its creator for the
purposes of the lawsuit.
But in November civil rights groups the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
(ACLU) filed a friend of the court brief, supporting Rosenthal's case.
In their brief, EFF and the ACLU argued that prior to the Appeals
Court ruling, similar attempts to eliminate the protections created in
the Act had been almost universally rejected.
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the implications for
free speech on-line are far-reaching, said the brief. Bloggers could
be held liable when they quote other people's writing, and web site
owners could be held liable for what people say in message boards on
their sites. The end result, according to the groups, is that many
people would simply cease to publish or host web sites.
"Every other jurisdiction addressing Section 230 has given effect to
Congress' broad protections and internet speech has flourished as a
result," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "The Court of Appeals
upset this settled law and we are simply asking the California Supreme
Court to set things right."
"Section 230 protects the ordinary people who use the internet and
e-mail to pass on items of interest written by others, free from the
fear of potentially ruinous lawsuits filed by those who don't like
what was said about them," said ACLU Staff Attorney Ann Brick.
"The vitality of the internet would quickly dissipate if the posting
of content written by others created liability. The impulse to
self-censor would be unavoidable," she added.
See: The text of the brief (29-page PDF)
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Defamation_abuse/Barrett_v_Clark/20041124_BarrettAmicusFinal.pdf
See also: No defamation for posting 3rd party statements, says US
judge, OUT-LAW News, 31/07/2001
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=nodefamationforpo996584441&area=news
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
|
| |
| |
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:51:28 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
Google the writer and see how she stifles free speech.
LOL ... we feel your stifleness Marla ... and it is so so deep.
Ditz!
www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html
Marla aka Mark Probert is a Publicist for losing Plaintiffs:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING
Directrix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently
DEFUNCT Humantics foundation, wrote from her hideaway in Costa Rica, wrote
in message news:t37er0ttdcot7jc7gv7tpu5eq7t67m1rs9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:51:28 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
LOL ... we feel your stifleness Marla ... and it is so so deep.
I never stifle free speech. I always encourage people to post proof of their
claims, etc.
Ditz!
www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html
Yes, a web page that you INCORRECTLY thought would stifle my free sppech.
Marla aka Mark Probert is a Publicist for losing Plaintiffs:
Are you really that stupid? Do not bother, as the answer is obvious.
I support free speech so strongly that I support you.
|
| |
| |
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
Like I said, several amicus briefs have been filed:
The following transaction has occurred in:
BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL
Case No. S122953, Supreme Court of California
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2004-12-06
Event Description: Amicus curiae brief filed
Notes:
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, et al., in support of resp. Answer due
within 20 days.
The following transaction has occurred in:
BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL
Case No. S122953, Supreme Court of California
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2004-12-06
Event Description: Amicus curiae brief filed
Notes:
LAW PROFESSORS WITH EXPERTISE IN INTERNET LAW in support of resp.
Answer due within 20 days.
The following transaction has occurred in:
BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL
Case No. S122953, Supreme Court of California
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2004-12-06
Event Description: Amicus curiae brief filed
Notes:
AMAZON.COM, et al. Answer due within 20 days.
All in support of your position.
Good.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:19:14 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
All in support of your position.
Good.
So here in front of God and everyone, you are claiming you want
Polevoy to lose this to me (as Barrett & Grell already have)?
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:16:27 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
wrote from her hideaway in Costa Rica,
I appreciate you posting about this ... I opine that you and Terry
alias Vera Teasdale and Nana Team are stalking me ... and your
reposting of this makes it apparent. I have several quotes from Vera
discussing this too ... not a good idea for your Team.
Google the writer and see how she stifles free speech.
LOL ... we feel your stifleness Marla ... and it is so so deep.
I never stifle free speech. I always encourage people to post proof of their
claims, etc.
LOL ... the fact is you have been whining and moaning and whimpering
that your free speech has been "stified" by Mean Ilena ...
and that I bully you and the rest of the Ragtag Posse, who happen to
be a splinter group of quackwatch.com who is a splinter of ACSH who is
paid by the chemical / pharmaceutical / silicone cartels.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
You follow me all over Usenet and have for years ... you have
attempted to infiltrate my support group by lies and deception under
the name of Marla Maples ... you were caught ...
Yet you complain of being stifled by me.
You fool only the other fools and shills.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING
Directrix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently
DEFUNCT Humantics foundation, wrote from her hideaway in Costa Rica, wrote
in message news:b5jer0hk6vpq5c0o8ibq7vjso71p3ueptk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:16:27 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
I appreciate you posting about this ... I opine that you
stalking me ...
Only an utter loon would conclude that. If I were one, I would conclude that
YOU stalked me when you posted the work location and address of someone in
Bayside, NY. Since that party is not a party to this newsgroup, that is most
definitely abbverant behavior on your part.
and your
reposting of this makes it apparent.
Like I said, only to an utter loon.
I have several quotes from Vera
discussing this too ... not a good idea for your Team.
Is that a threat?
Google the writer and see how she stifles free speech.
LOL ... we feel your stifleness Marla ... and it is so so deep.
I never stifle free speech. I always encourage people to post proof of
their
claims, etc.
LOL ... the fact is you have been whining and moaning and whimpering
that your free speech has been "stified" by Mean Ilena ...
Ilena, you do not have gonads big enough for the job.
and that I bully you and the rest of the Ragtag Posse, who happen to
be a splinter group of quackwatch.com who is a splinter of ACSH who is
paid by the chemical / pharmaceutical / silicone cartels.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
You follow me all over Usenet and have for years ...
You followed me to several groups, and you were then thrown out. .
you have
attempted to infiltrate my support group by lies and deception under
the name of Marla Maples ... you were caught ...
Yes, and I explained why. YOU have not disproven my explanation.
Yet you complain of being stifled by me.
Like I said...gonads...
You fool only the other fools and shills.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
No one is fooled by you, except Jan Drew, and anyone can fool her.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:19:14 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
So here in front of God and everyone, you are claiming you want
Polevoy to lose this to me (as Barrett & Grell already have)?
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
I have stated it before. I think that they should have developed thicker
skins knowing that alt medders and jerk advocates, like you, are not normal
and they should have expected your antics. It is akin to swimming in shark
infested waters and complaining about being bit.
The rights under the First Amendment are, AFAIAC, nearly absolute. When it
says Congress shall make NO law, I equate NO with near zero.
This is absolutely nothing new on my part. You could have read it before,
except that you are blinded by hate.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:16:27 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
I appreciate you posting about this ... I opine that you and Terry
alias Vera Teasdale and Nana Team are stalking me ... and your
reposting of this makes it apparent.
Get over yourself, Ilena.
It is a well known fact you ran off to Costa Rica and
left behind a big debt to an individual and a collection
agency to hunt you down.
Tell us now, is there or is there not a legal judgment
against you that you have not paid (and verifiable in court documents).
The world is 'stalking' you according to your insane "Mine Enemies"
webpages.
I understand now why you tossed up a hate webpage for me, because I dared to
question what was going on with all the personal attacks on such a 'variety'
of people you lumped together as 'shills' 'paid offs' or 'bought offs'. And
BINGO, I got tossed in that same miss-mosh of people working for some secret
spy agency cartel or whatever else you choose to call it from day to day.
But what it's really about (in retrospect) is YOU got sued. Period.
And the focus has been on YOU and your personal problems with your 'big
mouth and arrogant appearing attitude'. It has nothing to do with
'protecting breast implant women' from the evil (invisible, secret cartel
boogie-man of your imagination.) It appears you have been using every
single breast implant woman as a protection shield for your big mouth and
personal lawsuit. Those who dared to question the ongoing insanity have
gotten to be 'assigned' a position working for the enemy and it doesn't
matter that we are women who had breast implants ourselves (where YOU have
not), or women who had breast cancer ourselves (and YOU did not).
We (the women who have been damaged by having had silicone breast implants)
are busy working together on the real issues going on in the 'implant
world'. You have been busy getting the focus on you, your lawsuit and
anything that has reflected negatively on the breast implantee community.
For sure as you advertised, you are a Terrorizing Activist. Please find
another 'cause' to 'terrorize'.
|
| |
| |
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:52:55 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
It is a well known fact you ran off to Costa Rica and
left behind a big debt to an individual
LOL ... yes, Coleah, this is only about the 3 millionth time you've
mentioned the $12k plus interest "big debt" to Silicone Manufacturer
Patrick J O'leary when he turned the SLAPP statute on it's head and
won this Judgement.
For all the billions of dollars in the silicone debacle ... this is
the $12K plus interest that means so much to you ...
While hundreds of thousands of women are being screwed by the Dows
concurrently ... and you already in receipt of a sizable "settlement"
by YOUR silicone manufacturer ... how fascinating that this means so
much to YOU.
You stand pocket to pocket with Polevoy's team of Ragtag Posse Members
....
You must be so proud of him ...
the world now knows that Polevoy does in fact, affect disguises to
attack me and others he is suing ... the same thing as Ms McPhee was
terrified of.
see:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm#PolevoyinDrag
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:52:55 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
LOL ... yes, Coleah, this is only about the 3 millionth time you've
mentioned the $12k plus interest "big debt" to Silicone Manufacturer
Patrick J O'leary when he turned the SLAPP statute on it's head and
won this Judgement.
For all the billions of dollars in the silicone debacle ... this is
the $12K plus interest that means so much to you ...
While hundreds of thousands of women are being screwed by the Dows
concurrently ... and you already in receipt of a sizable "settlement"
by YOUR silicone manufacturer ... how fascinating that this means so
much to YOU.
You stand pocket to pocket with Polevoy's team of Ragtag Posse Members
===============
It really is futile to get a straight answer out of you,
but you continue to blacken your own eyes and that
is refreshing for those of us you have spewed your insanity about.
You mock and belittle the legal debt you owe.
You mock and belittle me for having gotten a settlement.
And you imply that there is some 'monitory reward for me personally
for being on some 'imaginary teams' of people you call 'Mine Enemies'.
Please don't pretend that BS has a thing to do with anything but you
personal life and a lawsuit against you that has absolutely nothing
to do with silicone breast implants or the women who have been
damaged by them. It's all about you. Please stop using us as a
shield to hide behind.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:18:21 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
Please don't pretend that BS has a thing to do with anything but you
personal life and a lawsuit against you that has absolutely nothing
to do with silicone breast implants
LOL ... only in your fantasies ...
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.html
See Coleah standing pocket to pocket with Silicone Selllers, Corporate
Lobbyists and Pharma/Med Device Shills:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:18:21 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
Please don't pretend that BS has a thing to do with anything but you
personal life and a lawsuit against you that has absolutely nothing
to do with silicone breast implants
LOL ... only in your fantasies ...
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.html
See Coleah standing pocket to pocket with Silicone Selllers, Corporate
Lobbyists and Pharma/Med Device Shills:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
Coleah seems to get some kind of Quack Pleasure from spreading lies
for Barrett's Team ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html
Here is why I know that Barrett's Regime and their Web of Deceit is
dangerous for the women harmed by breast implants ... women I love
beyond measure ... and to whom I have dedicated 9 years of my life
telling their stories to the media.
It Barrett's Quack Team has their way ... wonderful scientists and
physcians who devote their lives to the study of MCS would lose their
licenses and/ or sued into oblivion ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html
EXCERPTS:
I believe that a review of Barretts and Polevoys websites also
illustrates that they publish their opinions and conclusions on
medical issues as "facts" concerning on-going medical controversies
such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), an illness that
devastates the health of a high number of women with breast implants.
As explained in my original declaration, 16, Barrett prematurely and,
in my opinion, inaccurately, concludes "Multiple chemical
sensitivity is not a legitimate diagnosis." (Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit
J, p. 6.)
I was shocked that Barrett wrote of the clinical ecologists who
believe in MCS, "most of them should have their licenses revoked."
(See Ex. I to my original declaration.)
I believe that if Barretts position becomes accepted by the
mainstream medical community, it would not only hinder women who are
impacted by the effects of this debilitating illness from getting the
help they need, it would also aid in the defense of the silicone
manufacturers in the billion dollar lawsuits against them that
continue today.
Plaintiffs claim that my statements about them are not related to
breast implant issues. (Opposition, 2:2-6). Barrett, in 15 of his
declaration, also declares, "I do not have a highly publicized
viewpoint on the subject of breast implants" and then states, "Nor
have I been involved in any public controversy about them." However,
page 21 of the 24-page report on "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity"
(MCS), edited by Barrett, and widely disseminated by the American
Council on Science and Health (ACSH), states "If the medical community
accepts the diagnosis and theory of MCS, a wide range of industries
could be seriously affected," and then lists the "silicone breast
implant" makers as number 6 of the industries seriously affected. (See
Exhibit A hereto for a true copy of excerpts of said report - opens
PDF file.)
|
| |
| |
|
