Re: Attorney Says Stephen Barrett Causes Harm, Pain and Anguish to Consumers

His firm consists of being on the computer all day, working out all of his
frustrations and telling lies.

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jy1ef.20856$rc7.18656@xxxxxxxxxxx
> PeterB wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PeterB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Edward wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>><1131621740.509469.197540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>>>>>>>>Edward <quackfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it will affect all the people on m.h.a who have to read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>self-serving hyperbolic bull*** written by Bolen et al.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>This wasn't written by Bolen, you Nazi skinhead. Oops, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>goes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>word again. You lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You have it backwards, dear boy. The person who introduces Nazi,
>>>>>>>>>>>Hitler, etc, loses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Wow, do you actually walk around in real life being this stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You haven't evolved past knucklewalking I bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Edward is right. David keeps dragging Bolen into it, when he wasn't
>>>>>>>>the target of the lawsuit. But don't feel obligated to concede that
>>>>>>>>point, we know how you prefer to remain in a state of ignorance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While Bolen was not the subject of the suit, Koren republished
>>>>>>>BolenBilge which was the subject of the suit, and Koren readily
>>>>>>>admitted
>>>>>>>that he did not give a cleanse if the "facts" Bolen cited were true.
>>>>>>>He
>>>>>>>clearly stated that he republished the BolenBilge for monetary
>>>>>>>reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The judge ruled that Koren's statements were not false, which means
>>>>>>that Barrett had no legal argument against either of them. End of
>>>>>>story.
>>>>>
>>>>>I did not see that the Judge ruled that Koren's statements were not
>>>>>false. According to Negrete:
>>>>>
>>>>>In making the ruling to throw out the case, Judge Johnson granted a
>>>>>rare
>>>>>directed verdict to the jury finding there was insufficient evidence to
>>>>>support Barrett's claims.
>>>>
>>>>Koren's published comments and Barrett's evidence were one and the
>>>>same.
>>>
>>>Not exactly, but not germane.
>>
>>
>> Than what was his evidence?
>
> For starters, what Koren published. Then, Barrett's proper attempts to
> alert Koren to the defamatory nature of the comments (which Koren admitted
> came from Bolen), and then Koren's own statements, as contained in the
> deposition, that he never bothered to check to see if the statements he
> was republishing were true. On top of that, Koren clearly stated that his
> purpose of republishing the statements, and then waiting months after
> learning that they were false to post a retraction, was a business
> decision.
>
> Read Koren's deposition for more information. He demonstrates an utter
> reckless disregard for truth.
>
>>>When a judge throws out even the possibility that a libel
>>>>defendant is reproachable, it means a trial would only skewer the
>>>>plaintiff. The judge actually did Barrett a favor, which is why I wish
>>>>it had gone to trial.
>>>
>>>Not in the slightest way are you even nearly correct. See below...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Judge Johnson indicated that this case was
>>>>>one of those "rare times" where such a motion was appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>Like I say, he spared Barrett a much greater humilation.
>>>
>>>Not at all. See below.
>>>
>>>>>The finding of insufficient evidence as the basis for a directed
>>>>>verdict
>>>>>means that the judge accepted everything that barrett said as true, but
>>>>>that did not make a viable claim *as a matter of law* not fact.
>>>>
>>>>First, that's the dumbest thing you've ever said (and that's saying
>>>>something),
>>>
>>>Well, as usual, you are saying nothing. For a directed verdict to be
>>>issued, the Judge must agree that there are no factual issues to go to
>>>the jury and, that as a matter of law, all of the evidence presented
>>>does not rise to that as sufficient to support a verdict other than the
>>>one he issues *as a matter of law*...
>>
>>
>> "For a directed verdict to be issued, the judge must agree that there
>> are no factual issues to go to the jury..." doesn't mean the judge
>> agreed with Barrett's legal position, or that he in fact, it means he
>> did not (otherwise it would have gone to trial.)
>
> Please carefully read what I type and try to learn some terminology. In
> the case of a directed verdict, defined as "a jury verdict ordered by the
> trial judge on the basis that the party with the burden of proof has
> failed to present a prima facie case" the judge must logically assume
> that every fact presented by the party is true, but, and this is the key
> point, *AS A MATTER OF LAW* there is no claim. Judges rule on law, juries
> rule on facts.
>
> Here, the judges ruling says, in essence: "Dr. Barrett, I assume that
> everything you have said is true. However, the law says that these facts,
> as you presented them, do not constitute a prima facie case of defamation,
> and, therefore, there is nothing for the jury to rule on. Therefore, your
> case is dismissed."
>
> In *other* defamation cases, it can easily go the other way....
>
> A person can make statements that a woman is a prostitute, sleeps with the
> homeless, has sex acts with animals in the zoo...etc. If they testify that
> they knew these statements to be untrue when they said them, the woman can
> ask for a directed verdict, as they are defamatory per se under the law.
>
> For more information on this issue:
>
> http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies208.htm
>
> I think that this is pretty clear.
>
> And the second part
>> of your comment simply underscores the following:
>>
>> (1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue
>> and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
>> jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the
>> issue *against* that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a
>> matter of law *against* that party with respect to a claim, or defense
>> that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without
>> a *favorable* finding on that issue.
>
> That is correct. However, for this to be applied, the judge must assume
> that everything Barrett claimed was true. If not, there is an issue of
> fact, and that is for the jury to decide.
>
>> (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time
>> before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify
>> the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party
>> is entitled to the judgment.
>>
>>>You really do not have a clue as to
>>>what you are talking about. Find the other thread, which was crossposted
>>>to legal groups for an education.
>>
>>
>> So, what's your point?
>
> You were wrong in your original claims.
>
>>>and second, what Barrett said was simply that Koren libeled
>>>
>>>>him. His only evidence was Koren's own published remarks.
>>>
>>>And Koren's testimony.
>>
>>
>> What testimony is that?
>
> The trial lasted three days. After that, the motion was made. I guess you
> missed that point in the articles, as they were mostly hysterical
> anti-Barrett propaganda.
>
> Further, Koren was deposed by Barrett's attorney before trial that is
> available on the web:
>
> http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/koren/depo.html
>
> Read the whole thing.
>
>>
>>>Of course,
>>>
>>>>his attorney brought an argument for libel, but that's *not* evidence,
>>>>it's just a claim for damages.
>>>
>>>Correct, but irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I note that this was previously explained to you and your AltHenchmen,
>>>>>and you still persist in making this utterly fallacious claim.
>>>
>>>>Don't blame me because Barrett hoisted himself on his own smear
>>>>campaign.
>>>
>>>I was not blaming you for Barrett, but for not learning the first time
>>>this was discussed. You sure are a slow learner, assuming that learning
>>>for you is even possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Negrete is of the same persuasion. He touts the US District Court
>>>>>finding against Barrett's malicious prosecution suit againt him, even
>>>>>though it was reversed on appeal.
>>>>
>>>>Barrett will get his due if he keeps up with this mockery of the
>>>>courts.
>>>
>>>Not in that case he won't. Negrete will get his because of the malicious
>>>prosecution. An attorney has a duty of due diligence to investigate
>>>alleged facts before commencing suit. I do it for clients all the time.
>>
>> The courts will have to make that determination based on evidence
>> presented, not your opinion.
>
> True. However, charging RICO law violations in a lawsuit and then
> withdrawing the suit as Negrete did, is a pretty convincing case of
> malice. Negrete is not protected by Barrett's public figure status, as
> Koren, Bolen and Rosenthal have been since malicious prosecution is not a
> defamatory action.
>
> In MY OPINION, an attorney should be held to a high standard of action,
> and, when they commence a suit where they knew, or should have known, that
> they have no basis for the suit, they should be held responsible for it.
>
> My firm does investigations for attorneys, and, when they commence suits,
> they have verifiable facts to fall back on. It is part of the legal
> concept of "due diligence" and we charge appropriately.
>
>>>>>I guess that slow learners flock together.
>>>
>>>>Barrett is the slow learner, a ball player with his record wouldn't be
>>>>making a dime.
>>>
>>>Assuming that Barrett is a slow learner, that places you as a
>>>non-learner.
>>>
>>>Sorry if this ruins your day.
>>
>>
>> It didn't come close.
>
> If at first I do not succeed, I will try again.
>


.