 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / February 2006I hope this clears it up...
Yet again, disbarred attorney Mark Probert is lying about this case ... called still Barrett vs Rosenthal ... although Barrett's case against has been decided. I won and he lost. As anyone can learn in Propaganda 101 ... mix lies amidst truth to further confuse an issue. Probert continues to do this on this case ... altho the Supreme Court of New York very specifically ruled that he was not to give legal opinion. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/sandraprobert.htm Text of his disbarment ruling I have little time in the near future to correct all the lies the Quackwatch Team continues to spread ... Coleah Penley Ayers, Willa/and or Ted Nidiffer, Peter Bowditch, Mark S Probert all have posted lies about this important internet lawsuit ... ~~~~ Details of this case are at: www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/quackbustersvsilena.htm Anyone can learn in propoganda 101? You teach that class Mrs Rosenthal? Betty Wirsen <Ilena> wrote in message news:injhv19nuhpqec5k61aqpk7rd9tljt8g99@4ax.com... > Yet again, disbarred attorney Mark Probert is lying about this case > ... called still Barrett vs Rosenthal ... although Barrett's case [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of New York very specifically ruled that he was not to give legal > opinion. Did you mean legal opinion for a fee? We have freedom of speech in the U.S. > <Ilena> wrote in message news:injhv19nuhpqec5k61aqpk7rd9tljt8g99@4ax.com... >> Yet again, disbarred attorney Mark Probert is lying about this case [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > We have freedom of speech in the U.S. Correct. Sadly, there are those who would do anything to stifle another persons free speech, if they disagreed with them. You can read some of my older posts at the Google Archives in m.h.a. by searching on 'Free Marketplace of Ideas'. >> <Ilena> wrote in message >> news:injhv19nuhpqec5k61aqpk7rd9tljt8g99@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You can read some of my older posts at the Google Archives in m.h.a. by > searching on 'Free Marketplace of Ideas'. BUT, that doesn't make any difference. According to several here you are wrong even if you agree. >>> <Ilena> wrote in message >>> news:injhv19nuhpqec5k61aqpk7rd9tljt8g99@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > BUT, that doesn't make any difference. According to several here you are > wrong even if you agree. You are VERY astute. What they cannot understand is that I am intellectually honest, and, understand that the First Amendment protects the most vile forms of speech, including theirs. Sadly, I am convinced they would not extend the same to me. In fact, they would do anything to stifle my free speech. <Ilena> wrote in message news:injhv19nuhpqec5k61aqpk7rd9tljt8g99@4ax.com... > Coleah Penley Ayers, Willa/and or Ted Nidiffer, Peter Bowditch, Mark S > Probert all have posted lies about this important internet lawsuit ... Yes, please have it your way. Whatever.......... What is going to happen on April 25, 2006 since you have all the correct answers? > Yet again, disbarred attorney Mark Probert is lying about this case > ... called still Barrett vs Rosenthal ... although Barrett's case > against has been decided. > > I won and he lost. Actually, like I have said before, the First Amendment and the Free Marketplace of Ideas won. You are merely an interchangeable item in the case. The ACLU, etc. does not care at all about WHO they defend, but do care about the issues and rights they defend. > As anyone can learn in Propaganda 101 ... mix lies amidst truth to > further confuse an issue. > > Probert continues to do this on this case ... I have done nothing of the sort: 1. I posted verifiable information for anyone who chooses to use the URLs so that they can see what is happening with both parts of Barrett, et al, vs. Rosenthal, et al. 2. I have clearly and unambiguously stated that I fully support your rights for free speech under this case. Further, I have criticized Barrett, et al, for bringing the case in the first place, since they knew that when they ventured into dealing with quackery, they would meet up with people who are unstable. They should either get a tougher skin, or get out of the business. I challenge you to post any link showing that my position has been other than this for years. One of the things that has surprised me Mark, is just how UNSTABLE they are. It's quite amazing isn't it. Ilena claimed that Patrick O'Leary lost to her also. She failed to mention she lost to him on appeal. She has refused to pay O'Leary his court ordered judgement for his attorney fees. She sues for $100 million --- When she loses she doesn't think she should pay his legal fees he won in the judgeoment. So dumb. This is the most pathetic and worthless thread on this newsgroup in a long time. It's boooring. Even Gastaldo's ravings about opening birth canals by 30% have more interest and meaning.  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.