|
The Rulings Against Appellants' Counsel Were Neither in Excess of the
Court's Jurisdiction Nor an Abuse of Discretion
http://www.casp.net/barrett3.html
As noted at the outset, appellants' attorney at trial and on this
appeal, Christopher E. Grell, was also originally a named plaintiff,
asserting in the complaint that, as an attorney, he "has a special
interest in cases involving health fraud or harm caused by herbal
products." At the hearing on May 30, 2001, the trial judge emphasized
the serious nature of Rosenthal's motion to strike to Grell
personally, "because if you lose, the next motion is one for fees. And
.... they are going to be seeking 20 or 30 or 50,000 [dollars] or God
knows how much against you. Not only your clients but you personally,
because you're a plaintiff. [] Which raises a very fundamental
question to you." (Italics added.) At that point the following brief
colloquy took place:
"THE COURT: What is the claim that you have on the merits?"
"Mr. GRELL: As against Ms. Rosenthal?
"THE COURT: Yes.
"MR. GRELL: I don't believe I have a claim against Ms. Rosenthal.
"THE COURT: Then why did you sue her?
"MR. GRELL: I don't believe that my allegations go directly to Ilena
Rosenthal. I think it [sic ] goes to Mr. Bolen."
Later in the hearing the court indicated it was likely to grant
Rosenthal's motion to strike and the motion for fees it expected would
later be made. The court deferred an actual ruling only to provide
Grell an opportunity to persuade it to allow further discovery before
ruling on the merits of the motion to strike.
The next day Grell moved to dismiss his action against Rosenthal only,
and this dismissal was entered on June 4, 2001. Grell remained a party
plaintiff as to all remaining defendants. The order granting
Rosenthal's motion to strike, which was filed on July 25, 2001, was
not only against appellants Barrett and Polevoy but also explicitly
against Grell as a coplaintiff. "Initially, the Court notes that
plaintiff Grell's claim fails the publication requirement, that is, an
affirmative showing by him that the statements at issue were directed
at or concerned him in some way. Notably, Grell is not mentioned in
any publication that Rosenthal is alleged to have made and presented
no evidence to show that any reader reasonably understood the
publications to refer to him. Indeed, at the hearing plaintiff Grell
as much as conceded the motion as against him."
|
| |
| |
Oh goody!
More 'mental masturbation' spouting from
Ilena's big knuckled fingers that the world
will have to listen to for.....oh perhaps the
next 4-5 more years of repost after repost,
after repost.
Gag, gag, gag rehashing of May 30, 2001
If you are in such desperate need for attention, Ilena,
why not bring up your domestic violence
police report? Or how about the fraud
charges filed against your dear daddy? Why
haven't you paid the Judgment with mounting
interest charges for thousands of dollars and
what's up with maxing a credit card and
failure to pay?
You really are 'something'...........
The Rulings Against Appellants' Counsel Were Neither in Excess of the
Court's Jurisdiction Nor an Abuse of Discretion
http://www.casp.net/barrett3.html
As noted at the outset, appellants' attorney at trial and on this
appeal, Christopher E. Grell, was also originally a named plaintiff,
asserting in the complaint that, as an attorney, he "has a special
interest in cases involving health fraud or harm caused by herbal
products." At the hearing on May 30, 2001, the trial judge emphasized
the serious nature of Rosenthal's motion to strike to Grell
personally, "because if you lose, the next motion is one for fees. And
... they are going to be seeking 20 or 30 or 50,000 [dollars] or God
knows how much against you. Not only your clients but you personally,
because you're a plaintiff. [] Which raises a very fundamental
question to you." (Italics added.) At that point the following brief
colloquy took place:
"THE COURT: What is the claim that you have on the merits?"
"Mr. GRELL: As against Ms. Rosenthal?
"THE COURT: Yes.
"MR. GRELL: I don't believe I have a claim against Ms. Rosenthal.
"THE COURT: Then why did you sue her?
"MR. GRELL: I don't believe that my allegations go directly to Ilena
Rosenthal. I think it [sic ] goes to Mr. Bolen."
Later in the hearing the court indicated it was likely to grant
Rosenthal's motion to strike and the motion for fees it expected would
later be made. The court deferred an actual ruling only to provide
Grell an opportunity to persuade it to allow further discovery before
ruling on the merits of the motion to strike.
The next day Grell moved to dismiss his action against Rosenthal only,
and this dismissal was entered on June 4, 2001. Grell remained a party
plaintiff as to all remaining defendants. The order granting
Rosenthal's motion to strike, which was filed on July 25, 2001, was
not only against appellants Barrett and Polevoy but also explicitly
against Grell as a coplaintiff. "Initially, the Court notes that
plaintiff Grell's claim fails the publication requirement, that is, an
affirmative showing by him that the statements at issue were directed
at or concerned him in some way. Notably, Grell is not mentioned in
any publication that Rosenthal is alleged to have made and presented
no evidence to show that any reader reasonably understood the
publications to refer to him. Indeed, at the hearing plaintiff Grell
as much as conceded the motion as against him."
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:09:14 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote a bunch of garbage ... now deleted ... LOL
Remember Coleah when Terry Polevoy ... whose quacksites you now
advertise ... showing up affecting the disguise as "Vera Teasdale" and
you were jumping up and down about his questions to me ... in drag?
Remember how he nuked his post when he realized he was using his
healthwatcher.net address while he was lying about who he was and you
copied it before he could nuke it????
You were so interested in this case then ... you just dont' seem to
like it when your buddies are reminded that Vera's co-plaintiffs have
already both lost to me !
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:09:14 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote a bunch of garbage ... now deleted ... LOL
Remember Coleah when Terry Polevoy ... whose quacksites you now
advertise ... showing up affecting the disguise as "Vera Teasdale" and
you were jumping up and down about his questions to me ... in drag?
You be full of cow dung, floozy-girl.
If someone mentioned going to McDonald's for a burger you'd
trounce all over them as 'advertising'. Get a life....better yet....get a
job
and pay your bills. Deadbeat.
Remember how he nuked his post when he realized he was using his
healthwatcher.net address while he was lying about who he was and you
copied it before he could nuke it????
What you mean to say is I replied to a post and you played gotcha
with the original author, none of which gave ME cause
to jump up and down. Yawn.............
You were so interested in this case then ... you just dont' seem to
like it when your buddies are reminded that Vera's co-plaintiffs have
already both lost to me !
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
I wasn't interested then. I'm not interested now.
What I will be interested in is
the NEXT case.
Ah yup, like I said.....
Oh goody!
More 'mental masturbation' spouting from
Ilena's big knuckled fingers that the world
will have to listen to for.....oh perhaps the
next 4-5 more years of repost after repost,
after repost.
Gag, gag, gag rehashing of May 30, 2001
If you are in such desperate need for attention, Ilena,
why not bring up your domestic violence
police report? Or how about the fraud
charges filed against your dear daddy? Why
haven't you paid the Judgment with mounting
interest charges for thousands of dollars and
what's up with maxing a credit card and
failure to pay?
You really are 'something'...........
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:14:41 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote enormous amounts of garbage ....
www.humanticsfoundation.com/volcanocorn.html
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:14:41 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote enormous amounts of garbage ....
You KNOW I have DOCUMENTATION from
PUBLIC RECORDS to stand behind, floozy-girl.
You have an imagination and a big mouth.
I have documented verification.........
On guard!
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:45:28 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
You KNOW I have DOCUMENTATION from
PUBLIC RECORDS to stand behind, floozy-girl.
You have an imagination and a big mouth.
I have documented verification.........
On guard!
LOL ... you going to send more of your Boogie Men friends after me ?
There's already a slew of them you stand pocket to pocket with here!
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
|
| |
| |
On 23 Dec 2004 00:49:04 GMT, ooreroom@aol.com (OOREROOM) wrote:
All this time you have been saying you
revailed but Grell actually defered. More
puffing from Ilena, eh?
LOL ... not at all ... that's just his spin ... the courts didn't buy
it ... and you snippered it, Ditz!
Read the last line ... only you shills were "persuaded" ... not the
courts. Nice try ... you're wrong as always!
www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html
EXCERPT:
The court could well conclude that, because he was an attorney, Grell
engaged in the chilling of constitutional rights more knowingly and
was therefore more responsible than Barrett.
Grell also pointed out that "[a]t no time did Defense counsel contact
me and ask what the basis of my claim against Ilena Rosenthal was" and
that "I do not make it a habit of suing people." The trial court was
obviously unpersuaded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
|
| |
| |
|
