Legal Logic Lesson

Not quite the case Peter. Everyone is on trial. Ever heard of Perjury, ever
heard of False Evidence, ever heard of a False Charge ? You take an Oath
and you are on Trial.
A good example of this is the baby bashing case here in Australia. I believe
"Court" was his surname. Held for two years prior to trial and then
dismissed by the Judge. I will dig up the info so that you can honour this
defendant or the Judge as you see fit. Seeing that this is "home turf"
stuff, I doubt you will be commenting on the Judge's decision.

Rod.

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The state of Wisconsin is prosecuting a doctor for malpractice. In a
court case such as this, the defendant is on trial. Nobody else is on
trial - not the judge or magistrate, not the prosecuting attorney
(even if it is suggested by paranoiacs that he is receiving underhand
payments from pharmaceutical companies), not the defence lawyer (even
if he is the sort of lawyer who is stupid enough to refer to a party
to another law suit as a "bottom feeding parasite"😉, not the court
official who calls out "Docket Number 12345, Judge Judy presiding",
not the court reporter, not the cleaning staff who come around in the
night to tidy the place up, not the investigators who did the
preliminary work which indicated that the court action should be
commenced, ...

And certainly not the witnesses.

All of the above is patently obvious to anyone who knows even the
tiniest bit about how the judicial system works. To even suggest that
a witness is somehow "on trial" displays such a detachment from
reality that the motives of anyone saying it must be questioned if
their sanity is not to be impugned.

In this particular case it seems that there are several reasons for
the creation and propagation of the lie that one of the witnesses is
"on trial" :

1) The witness is a official of an organisation which is hated and
despised because it opposes a particular form of criminal activity of
which the accuser approves.

2) The witness is an associate of a person who is so hated by the
accuser that he is sometimes referred to as the most evil person on
the Internet. The witness must therefore be hated as well.

3) The witness is appearing for the prosecution and the accuser hopes
that by discrediting the witness the witness's character will become
the issue rather than what the witness says.

4) The accuser fully supports the alleged criminal activity of the
defendant, and has such a mind set that anyone who opposes such
criminal activity must be an object of hatred.

5) The accuser believes that other people who support the criminal
activity will not understand the difference between appearing in court
as a witness and being on trial.

6) The originator of the lie is a pathological liar but is believed by
others simply because he hates whom they hate. This phenomenon is
noticeable in many areas of bigotry.

6) The witness is a member of a hated class or group.

6) The defendant is a member of a class or group which the accuser
sees as incapable of any wrongdoing, therefore any witness who speaks
out against the defendant must be hated and despised.

9) The accusers believe that if you repeat a lie often enough others
might start to believe it in the absence of any evidence. (Note how I
have avoided the Godwin trap.)

10) To the accusers then end justifies the means, and no means can be
considered unacceptable behaviour for any reason even if it appears to
violate the accuser's claimed religious convictions.

That will do for now.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Wrong, Rod. Bolen, being in the US used the term "on trial" which means,
here, that the person is the actual subject of the suit, or the named
defendnat in the criminal matter. Baratz was neither, thus, Bolen was
grossly inaccurate, and IMNSHO, lied.

Rod said:

Not quite the case Peter. Everyone is on trial. Ever heard of Perjury, ever
heard of False Evidence, ever heard of a False Charge ? You take an Oath
and you are on Trial.
A good example of this is the baby bashing case here in Australia. I believe
"Court" was his surname. Held for two years prior to trial and then
dismissed by the Judge. I will dig up the info so that you can honour this
defendant or the Judge as you see fit. Seeing that this is "home turf"
stuff, I doubt you will be commenting on the Judge's decision.

Rod.

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The state of Wisconsin is prosecuting a doctor for malpractice. In a
court case such as this, the defendant is on trial. Nobody else is on
trial - not the judge or magistrate, not the prosecuting attorney
(even if it is suggested by paranoiacs that he is receiving underhand
payments from pharmaceutical companies), not the defence lawyer (even
if he is the sort of lawyer who is stupid enough to refer to a party
to another law suit as a "bottom feeding parasite"😉, not the court
official who calls out "Docket Number 12345, Judge Judy presiding",
not the court reporter, not the cleaning staff who come around in the
night to tidy the place up, not the investigators who did the
preliminary work which indicated that the court action should be
commenced, ...

And certainly not the witnesses.

All of the above is patently obvious to anyone who knows even the
tiniest bit about how the judicial system works. To even suggest that
a witness is somehow "on trial" displays such a detachment from
reality that the motives of anyone saying it must be questioned if
their sanity is not to be impugned.

In this particular case it seems that there are several reasons for
the creation and propagation of the lie that one of the witnesses is
"on trial" :

1) The witness is a official of an organisation which is hated and
despised because it opposes a particular form of criminal activity of
which the accuser approves.

2) The witness is an associate of a person who is so hated by the
accuser that he is sometimes referred to as the most evil person on
the Internet. The witness must therefore be hated as well.

3) The witness is appearing for the prosecution and the accuser hopes
that by discrediting the witness the witness's character will become
the issue rather than what the witness says.

4) The accuser fully supports the alleged criminal activity of the
defendant, and has such a mind set that anyone who opposes such
criminal activity must be an object of hatred.

5) The accuser believes that other people who support the criminal
activity will not understand the difference between appearing in court
as a witness and being on trial.

6) The originator of the lie is a pathological liar but is believed by
others simply because he hates whom they hate. This phenomenon is
noticeable in many areas of bigotry.

6) The witness is a member of a hated class or group.

6) The defendant is a member of a class or group which the accuser
sees as incapable of any wrongdoing, therefore any witness who speaks
out against the defendant must be hated and despised.

9) The accusers believe that if you repeat a lie often enough others
might start to believe it in the absence of any evidence. (Note how I
have avoided the Godwin trap.)

10) To the accusers then end justifies the means, and no means can be
considered unacceptable behaviour for any reason even if it appears to
violate the accuser's claimed religious convictions.

That will do for now.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Quoted message said:

From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 6:06 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Umm, Peter.

Still waiting for confirmation on the information you posted.

Got any?

What is taking sooooooooooooooooo long???

You had time to give this speech, but still no way for us to check your
information.

Jan

Rod said:

Not quite the case Peter. Everyone is on trial. Ever heard of Perjury, ever
heard of False Evidence, ever heard of a False Charge ? You take an Oath
and you are on Trial.

Perjury is a criminal offence for which you can be put on trial. By
committing perjury, a witness can, at some later date, be placed "on
trial" for the alleged offence of perjury. Being a witness is not
being on trial, even if the witness is lying.

Presenting false evidence to a court is a form of perjury and the
comments above apply.

Every defendant claims that it is a "false charge". That is what being
a defendant is. Making actual false charges (note - a false charge is
not just a charge which is found to be unsubstantiated in law by the
court) may or may not be a criminal offence. By definition, the person
bringing the charges is the prosecutor and can therefore not be "on
trial", as that status is reserved for the defendant.

Taking an oath (or making an affirmation if applicable) is simply a
statement that someone intends to be truthful in giving evidence. The
defendant, who is "on trial", has no obligation in the common law
world to take an oath unless called to make a statement to the court.
There is no requirement for the defendant to say anything, so no oath
is needed.

Quoted message said:

A good example of this is the baby bashing case here in Australia. I believe
"Court" was his surname. Held for two years prior to trial and then
dismissed by the Judge. I will dig up the info so that you can honour this
defendant or the Judge as you see fit. Seeing that this is "home turf"
stuff, I doubt you will be commenting on the Judge's decision.

People are often held for a time before appearing in court. There is
even a word, "remand", in the English language just for this practice.
Some of the people held on remand are subsequently found to be not
guilty. That is the way the criminal legal system works. Unless you
want to do away totally with the concept of "bail" and allow anyone
accused of any crime to remain at liberty until appearing in court,
you must accept that occasionally people are imprisoned before trial
and later found to be not guilty.

I assume the SBS case you are talking about is the one where two,
count them - two, subdural hematomas and evidence of bleeding in both
eyes was found and the defence was that the child had been quite
happily running around for 24 hours after having the fall that caused
the damage. People not blinded by a hatred for medicine might wonder
how such damage could be sustained without any immediate effect on the
child, and, in any case, why the parents (assuming that the man
involved was the father of his girlfriend's child) didn't seek medical
assistance as soon as the child was injured rather than waiting a day.

Here's something I wrote about this a little while ago:

Shaken Grandparent Syndrome (19/4/2003)

I was planning to write a piece this week about the people who are
trying to get the world to believe that there is no such thing as
Shaken Baby Syndrome, but ironically I was distracted by a baby who
needed medical attention for a possible head injury. (This is also the
reason for the late update this week.) My grandson fell onto a hard
wooden floor when the handle broke off the basket he was being carried
in, and he was taken to hospital strapped to a back board. It's
surprisingly difficult to explain to a six-month-old why he has to
wear an uncomfortable plastic collar, have his head immobilised, have
all sorts of tubes and leads attached to him, be exposed to doses of
radiation so strong that everyone else around has to wear lead aprons,
and have strangers perform indignities on him. There is no apparent
permanent damage and he is home now. He shared a hospital room with a
toddler who had fallen down a flight of stairs, and this other child
is also in fine condition after his adventure.

The incident made me think about two things. One was the question of
which "alternative" medicine modality would have had any way of
treating these children or of finding out the extent of their
injuries. I suppose a chiropractor could have fiddled with their
necks, but I wonder what the reaction would have been from some of the
people, like the one who wrote to me this week, who reject all
conventional medicine and who rant on about how dangerous hospitals
are. The other thing that I thought about was, given the minor
injuries sustained by these two children, how much force must be used
when shaking or throwing a baby to cause the damage seen in babies
shaken to death. It takes a lot more than a fall from a cot.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

In said:

While I consider you actions noble and proper, I am afraid that you are
wasting your time. The actions of certain people have proven that they enjoy
and cherish the hate, bigotry, racism, and utter contempt for education and
authority they express daily.

Precisely. That's why they make such wonderful object lessons.

Remember the kittens^Wlurkers.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Peter,
Thank you for your reply. In the first instance I point out that the
Plaintiff (or their Counsel) have a duty at law. If during the course of
trial and indeed even before trial it is demonstrated that the Plaintiff has
erred it is possible for the Defendant to lodge counterclaim prior to a
trial. This is why some actions never go to court. That counter claim can
include costs and damages. You will appreciate that frivolous
unsubstantiated claims can be time wasting, costly and most damaging to a
persons reputation.
It is not uncommon for the Plaintiff to withdraw the matter prior to Trial
less they be subject to greater claim and loss.

More to the point is that both Plaintiff and Defendant are both on Trial by
virtue of the claim. The court provides transcript which of course can be
used and is used where it clearly provides evidence of Perjury or attempt at
slander during proceedings as well as the Trial Judges findings and rulings.

There in lies one of the safeguards of the system which is used on many
occasion to overturn judgements and further counterclaims.
So my point is relevant that all parties are on Trial when there is a Trial.
We hear it all the time that the Magistrate or Judge erred at law and the
findings become overturned. So Magistrates and Judges are always subject to
Trial scrutiny also.

I think your reply does not address the issue but rather the personalities
or (poisonalities) if you care. Of course this is the case with 95% of
postings on this newsgroup. This I find a shame as some people look for a
little bit of guidance and only end up in the middle of a continuing useless
battle of perceived "side" bashing.

Cheers, Rod

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The state of Wisconsin is prosecuting a doctor for malpractice. In a
court case such as this, the defendant is on trial. Nobody else is on
trial - not the judge or magistrate, not the prosecuting attorney
(even if it is suggested by paranoiacs that he is receiving underhand
payments from pharmaceutical companies), not the defence lawyer (even
if he is the sort of lawyer who is stupid enough to refer to a party
to another law suit as a "bottom feeding parasite"😉, not the court
official who calls out "Docket Number 12345, Judge Judy presiding",
not the court reporter, not the cleaning staff who come around in the
night to tidy the place up, not the investigators who did the
preliminary work which indicated that the court action should be
commenced, ...

And certainly not the witnesses.

All of the above is patently obvious to anyone who knows even the
tiniest bit about how the judicial system works. To even suggest that
a witness is somehow "on trial" displays such a detachment from
reality that the motives of anyone saying it must be questioned if
their sanity is not to be impugned.

In this particular case it seems that there are several reasons for
the creation and propagation of the lie that one of the witnesses is
"on trial" :

1) The witness is a official of an organisation which is hated and
despised because it opposes a particular form of criminal activity of
which the accuser approves.

2) The witness is an associate of a person who is so hated by the
accuser that he is sometimes referred to as the most evil person on
the Internet. The witness must therefore be hated as well.

3) The witness is appearing for the prosecution and the accuser hopes
that by discrediting the witness the witness's character will become
the issue rather than what the witness says.

4) The accuser fully supports the alleged criminal activity of the
defendant, and has such a mind set that anyone who opposes such
criminal activity must be an object of hatred.

5) The accuser believes that other people who support the criminal
activity will not understand the difference between appearing in court
as a witness and being on trial.

6) The originator of the lie is a pathological liar but is believed by
others simply because he hates whom they hate. This phenomenon is
noticeable in many areas of bigotry.

6) The witness is a member of a hated class or group.

6) The defendant is a member of a class or group which the accuser
sees as incapable of any wrongdoing, therefore any witness who speaks
out against the defendant must be hated and despised.

9) The accusers believe that if you repeat a lie often enough others
might start to believe it in the absence of any evidence. (Note how I
have avoided the Godwin trap.)

10) To the accusers then end justifies the means, and no means can be
considered unacceptable behaviour for any reason even if it appears to
violate the accuser's claimed religious convictions.

That will do for now.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

In said:

If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining

Put the pipe down slowly, Mark.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Mark Probert <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Wrong, Rod. Bolen, being in the US used the term "on trial" which means,
here, that the person is the actual subject of the suit, or the named
defendnat in the criminal matter. Baratz was neither, thus, Bolen was
grossly inaccurate, and IMNSHO, lied.

IYNSHO?

As a failed attorney ... and one who has had enormous personal
problems in the legal world ... you would think you would know how "on
trial" Quack Baratz will be when he goes before the court.

Why did the NY Bar Association pay 6 of your former clients, NSH
Probert?

What happened to your former license to practice law?

For more on this NSH Parrott for the Health frauds ... go to:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining

Put the pipe down slowly, Mark.

I know it does appear that way when one actually understands Jan.

Mark Probert said:

Peter Bowditch said:

(Jan) said:

>From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
>Date: 7/1/2003 6:06 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>
Umm, Peter.

Still waiting for confirmation on the information you posted.

Got any?

What is taking sooooooooooooooooo long???

You had time to give this speech, but still no way for us to check your
information.

Jan

I have given my response. That you choose to not understand that being
a witness is not "on trial" is not my problem. No further evidence is
required other than an understanding of what the words mean.

Remove the scales of hate from your eyes for just a moment and you
might see the truth.

Peter, Jan is asking for proof of the claim that Baratz was *invited by
the court* to appear as an expert witness as a replacement for Renner.

I looked on Quackwatch, etc. and could not find support for this point.
Perhaps you are privy to where it can be found.

If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining and get
on to the substantive issue of Bolen's Bull.

Almost by definition, a witness can only appear at the invitation of
one of the parties or the court. It is possible to offer oneself as a
witness, but you can't appear unless invited.

Here is part of a message that Dr Baratz sent to the Healthfraud
mailing list about this:

======

In a widely circulated piece by Patrick "tim" Bolen, the same Bolen
who "assisted" Douglas Phillips, DDS in Florida (Phillips had his
license revoked on three counts; currently Phillips is appealing),
Bolen said, "Baratz goes on trial in Wisconsin".

This is quite false. I am not on trial in Wisconsin, nor have I been
charged with any offense. I am a witness for the State of Wisconsin in
a disciplinary proceeding regarding E. Kadile, MD. The State has
charged Kadile with a number of serious offenses. You can read these
charges (which are public) on Quackwatch.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/kadile.html Originally, John Renner,
MD was an expert for the State of Wisconsin in the Kadile matter..
After his untimely death, the State asked me to assist them in this
case. You will note that the State called me, not vice versa, and
that the State directs and decides what occurs in Wisconsin regarding
licensure, not NCAHF or I. To think that I or the NCAHF can "force"
or "tell" the State or the licensing board, what to do is ludicrous,
and perhaps delusionary.

======

I realise that this will be unacceptable to Jan, as Dr Baratz suffers
from the deficiencies of being a simultaneous member of both Evil
Organised Medicine and Evil Organised Dentistry, is a personal
acquaintance of "the most evil person on the Internet", and once
appeared as an expert witness in a case where a dentist was charged
with malpractice. (If you wonder why Jan would not like someone who
helped have a dentist's licence yanked, the relevant dentist just
happened to participate in the fraud of removing perfectly good
amalgam fillings. This was not the basis of the malpractice charges,
but anti-amalgamists cannot see beyond the silvery cloud in front of
their eyes.)

I have never known Dr Baratz to lie and what he says here is in accord
with how the law and the world works. The principles of inductive
reasoning and Bayesian logic also suggest that anything said by Tim
Bolen, up to and including a statement of the current date and time,
should be considered untrue unless confirmed by ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:49 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

So what this amounts to, is you believe whatever Baratz says. That what I
thought.

As I said, I have no reason to disbelieve him as what he said makes
sense in the world in which most of us live. I will just repeat the

bit you snipped so that people can see what I really said:

I realise that this will be unacceptable to Jan, as Dr Baratz suffers
from the deficiencies of being a simultaneous member of both Evil
Organised Medicine and Evil Organised Dentistry, is a personal
acquaintance of "the most evil person on the Internet", and once
appeared as an expert witness in a case where a dentist was charged
with malpractice. (If you wonder why Jan would not like someone who
helped have a dentist's licence yanked, the relevant dentist just
happened to participate in the fraud of removing perfectly good
amalgam fillings. This was not the basis of the malpractice charges,
but anti-amalgamists cannot see beyond the silvery cloud in front of
their eyes.)

I have never known Dr Baratz to lie and what he says here is in accord
with how the law and the world works. The principles of inductive
reasoning and Bayesian logic also suggest that anything said by Tim
Bolen, up to and including a statement of the current date and time,
should be considered untrue unless confirmed by ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

Now, back to Jan. (I know, the subject is not Jan, but I couldn't
think of how else to say it.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mark Probert said:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>>>From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
>>>Date: 7/1/2003 6:06 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>>>
>>Umm, Peter.
>>
>>Still waiting for confirmation on the information you posted.
>>
>>Got any?
>>
>>What is taking sooooooooooooooooo long???
>>
>>You had time to give this speech, but still no way for us to check your
>>information.
>>
>>Jan
>
>
> I have given my response. That you choose to not understand that being
> a witness is not "on trial" is not my problem. No further evidence is
> required other than an understanding of what the words mean.
>
> Remove the scales of hate from your eyes for just a moment and you
> might see the truth.

Peter, Jan is asking for proof of the claim that Baratz was *invited by
the court* to appear as an expert witness as a replacement for Renner.

I looked on Quackwatch, etc. and could not find support for this point.
Perhaps you are privy to where it can be found.

If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining and get
on to the substantive issue of Bolen's Bull.

It didn't stop her whining. I knew that in advance, but sometimes you
just have to try to do the impossible. One's reach should exceed one's
grasp.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Almost by definition, a witness can only appear at the invitation of
one of the parties or the court. It is possible to offer oneself as a
witness, but you can't appear unless invited.

Here is part of a message that Dr Baratz sent to the Healthfraud
mailing list about this:

Quoted message said:

In a widely circulated piece by Patrick "tim" Bolen, the same Bolen
who "assisted" Douglas Phillips, DDS in Florida (Phillips had his
license revoked on three counts; currently Phillips is appealing),
Bolen said, "Baratz goes on trial in Wisconsin".

The above is another witch hunt typical of Barrett and Baratz.

Jan is referring to a case where a dentist did not keep the records
required by the regulations covering his profession. As he was also a
participant in the fraud of needless amalgam removal, all other sins
are absolved in the eyes of anti-amalgamists. Much like the way that
Tim Bolen's lies are given credibility because he once did PR work for
a quack. Jan might also like to outline Dr Barrett's part in the
charges that were brought against Phillips, as Dr Barrett had never
heard of Phillips until Tim Bolen started telling lies about him and
the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is quite false. I am not on trial in Wisconsin, nor have I been
charged with any offense. I am a witness for the State of Wisconsin in
a disciplinary proceeding regarding E. Kadile, MD. The State has
charged Kadile with a number of serious offenses

Another witch hunt to stop alternative medicine.

Jan is referring to a case where, inter alia, a doctor knew so little
about chemistry that he administered the wrong chelation chemical to
patients. If he had just stuck to cutting off the wrong leg then I
assume that Jan would consider him part of EOM.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

and once
appeared as an expert witness in a case where a dentist was charged
with malpractice.

Quoted message said:

anti-amalgamists cannot see

Quite wrong.

Amalgams are on their way out and it is long past time.

Have they been banned in Sweden? You told us they were. Then you told
us they weren't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have never known Dr Baratz to lie

Uh huh.

There ya have it.

Jan, do you have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of Dr Baratz lying to me?

Quoted message said:

It appears his website is gone.

http://www.nachf.org/

That non-existent site might have gone, but http://www.ncahf.org is
burbling along nicely. Please do not make any remarks about anything
just being a typo, as you went on to comment about the non-existent
site.

Quoted message said:

I believe he also states there is no mercury in amalgam.

That is a TOTAL PROVEN LIE!!

Could you please provide the context in which Dr Baratz said this. If
he was referring to the chemical bonds in amalgam, then what he said
is not far from saying that there is no sodium in salt or no hydrogen
in water. People with a minimal grasp of chemistry would know what he
meant, but some of them will still choose to misrepresent him in order
to further their agendas.

Quoted message said:

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_vs_talk_notice_may_10.htm

IN THE MATTER OF thc Libel and Slander Act,

R·S.O. 1990, c. L-12

TO: Wayne Obie, Huntsville, Ontario

AND TO: Talk Canada

NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that Drs. Stephen Barrett and Robert Baratz (the "Complainants"😉
complain of a message published by Wayne Obie and Talk Canada in the TalkNEWS
news group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/talkNEWS/message/162) on March 31,
2001 under the subject "Florida Judge orders GRILLING of Quackbuster
PERJURER(?)". The message complained of is attached as Schedule "A". The
Complainants complain in regard to the entirety of the message, but without
restricting the generality of the foregoing, complain in particular about the
words underlined on Schedule "A".

The Complainants state that the message complained of is false and defamtory of
them and was published maliciously and for an ulterior purpose. Without
limiting the generality of the natural and ordinary meaning and innuendoes of
the words complained of, and the context in which they appeared, the words mean
or were understood to mean that:

(a) Dr. Baratz misrepresented his professional qualifications;

(b) Dr. Baratz was terminated from his employment;

(c) Dr. Baratz has been unable to find other employment;

(d) Dr. Baratz is solely motivated by money;

(e) Dr. Baratz is emotionally unstable and paranoid;

(f) Dr. Baratz attempted to circumvent a court order;

(g) Dr. Barrett's medical license was taken from him;

(h) Dr. Barrett is a crackpot and delusional;

(i) few people agree with Dr. Barrett, and those who do are crazy, obsessed
and, or stupid;

(j) Dr. Baratz is crazy, obsessed and stupid;

(k) Dr. Baratz lies and that it is his job to lie;

(l) Dr. Baratz made false claims in court; and

(m) Dr. Baratz committed perjury.

So, Jan, you don't think that there is anything wrong with someone
saying these things about someone else, but it is instead wrong to sue
for redress of damage to one's reputation. I know that in your eyes
anything said by Wayne Obie must be true because he opposes amalgams,
but in the real world people are expected to back up statements such
as "Dr. Barrett's medical license was taken from him". How would you
react to someone who continually repeated the lie that you no longer
have a licence to operate a child care center because you licence had
been taken away by the authorities? Do not claim diversion here, as
the situations are identical. You retired, Dr Barrett retired, you do
not have a current licence, Dr Barrett does not have a current
licence. Obie knows this; Bolen knows this.

<snip many unsubstantiated claims made by Wayne Obie in something he
published>

Quoted message said:

Where are they Peter??

I assume that here Jan is talking about the documents in response to
the above suit, as required by Canadian law. Perhaps Jan should ask
Wayne Obie why he has not responded.

Quoted message said:

The ONLY thing Baratz is interested in is PROTECTING ORGANIZED MEDICINE AND
DENTISTRY.

And like sue happy Barrett, he is also in trying to take away the licenses of
alternative dentist who PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THEIR PATIENTS.

So it's OK to not keep records, not have professional indemnity
insurance as required by law, and provide substandard treatment? (The
complaint was initiated by a patient, who, as a chiropractor, is
obviously a part of Evil Organised Medicine.) It's OK to remove teeth
with no fillings in them in order to remove amalgam? (We're talking
about Hal Huggins, a major anti-amalgam hero, here.)

Quoted message said:

What is really sad, is that he can say their is no mercury in mercury
amalgams,,,,,,,,,,,,and the STUPID, EVIL, members of organized dentistry cheer
him on.

There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". People with minimal
education in chemistry and metallurgy know this. The expression
"mercury amalgam" has as much semantic content as "apple fruit" or
"prejudiced bigot". An amalgam is an alloy of mercury and something
else, and, depending on the other metal, the bonds between atoms in an
amalgam can be as strong as those between the atoms in any other
chemical compound. For those who like to perpetuate the myth that
alloys are just mixtures of metals, I invite an explanation of how
alloying a small amount of nickel with iron and carbon prevents the
iron from rusting.

Quoted message said:

Pathetic.

Jan

It certainly is. Imagine having nothing except ad hominem to support
your position. I also like the circularity of the ad hominem - Dr
Baratz cannot be believed as an expert witness because he is a liar,
and the evidence of him being a liar is that he appears as an expert
witness.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Peter Bowditch said:

My grandson fell onto a hard
wooden floor when the handle broke off the basket he was being carried
in, and he was taken to hospital strapped to a back board. It's
surprisingly difficult to explain to a six-month-old why he has to
wear an uncomfortable plastic collar, have his head immobilised, have
all sorts of tubes and leads attached to him, be exposed to doses of
radiation so strong that everyone else around has to wear lead aprons,
and have strangers perform indignities on him. There is no apparent
permanent damage and he is home now. He shared a hospital room with a
toddler who had fallen down a flight of stairs, and this other child
is also in fine condition after his adventure.

That was a month or so ago.
I hope he's very well again now, - 110% no less!

--

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:49 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

So what this amounts to, is you believe whatever Baratz says. That what I
thought.

Quoted message said:

Mark Probert said:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>>>From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
>>>Date: 7/1/2003 6:06 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>>>
>>Umm, Peter.
>>
>>Still waiting for confirmation on the information you posted.
>>
>>Got any?
>>
>>What is taking sooooooooooooooooo long???
>>
>>You had time to give this speech, but still no way for us to check

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>information.
>>
>>Jan
>
>
> I have given my response. That you choose to not understand that being
> a witness is not "on trial" is not my problem. No further evidence is
> required other than an understanding of what the words mean.
>
> Remove the scales of hate from your eyes for just a moment and you
> might see the truth.

Peter, Jan is asking for proof of the claim that Baratz was *invited by
the court* to appear as an expert witness as a replacement for Renner.

I looked on Quackwatch, etc. and could not find support for this point.
Perhaps you are privy to where it can be found.

If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining and get
on to the substantive issue of Bolen's Bull.

Almost by definition, a witness can only appear at the invitation of
one of the parties or the court. It is possible to offer oneself as a
witness, but you can't appear unless invited.

Here is part of a message that Dr Baratz sent to the Healthfraud
mailing list about this:

Quoted message said:

In a widely circulated piece by Patrick "tim" Bolen, the same Bolen
who "assisted" Douglas Phillips, DDS in Florida (Phillips had his
license revoked on three counts; currently Phillips is appealing),
Bolen said, "Baratz goes on trial in Wisconsin".

The above is another witch hunt typical of Barrett and Baratz.

Quoted message said:

This is quite false. I am not on trial in Wisconsin, nor have I been
charged with any offense. I am a witness for the State of Wisconsin in
a disciplinary proceeding regarding E. Kadile, MD. The State has
charged Kadile with a number of serious offenses

Another witch hunt to stop alternative medicine.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

and once
appeared as an expert witness in a case where a dentist was charged
with malpractice.

Quoted message said:

anti-amalgamists cannot see

Quite wrong.

Amalgams are on their way out and it is long past time.

Quoted message said:

I have never known Dr Baratz to lie

Uh huh.

There ya have it.

It appears his website is gone.

http://www.nachf.org/

I believe he also states there is no mercury in amalgam.

That is a TOTAL PROVEN LIE!!

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_vs_talk_notice_may_10.
htm

Quoted message said:

IN THE MATTER OF thc Libel and Slander Act,

R·S.O. 1990, c. L-12

TO: Wayne Obie, Huntsville, Ontario

AND TO: Talk Canada

NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that Drs. Stephen Barrett and Robert Baratz (the

"Complainants"😉

Cool! A six-dollar KaChing! ;o) Rich

Peter Bowditch said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I have given my response. That you choose to not understand that being
>>a witness is not "on trial" is not my problem. No further evidence is
>>required other than an understanding of what the words mean.
>>
>>Remove the scales of hate from your eyes for just a moment and you
>>might see the truth.
>
>Peter, Jan is asking for proof of the claim that Baratz was *invited by
>the court* to appear as an expert witness as a replacement for Renner.
>
>I looked on Quackwatch, etc. and could not find support for this point.
>Perhaps you are privy to where it can be found.
>
>If you do have it, please post it, so she will stop her whining and get
>on to the substantive issue of Bolen's Bull.

It didn't stop her whining. I knew that in advance, but sometimes you
just have to try to do the impossible. One's reach should exceed one's
grasp.

Call me Don Quixote.

Mark Probert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Call me Don Quixote.

There are galaxies between who think you are,

Mark S.

"Marla Maples"

"Will Ketcher"

Probert ...

and the twisted, deluded, repugnant human being you've become.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#ProbertTheCoward

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Probert said:

Jan said:

Quoted message said:

This is quite false. I am not on trial in Wisconsin, nor have I been
charged with any offense. I am a witness for the State of Wisconsin in
a disciplinary proceeding regarding E. Kadile, MD. The State has
charged Kadile with a number of serious offenses

Another witch hunt to stop alternative medicine.

Jan, the complaint against kadile is available. Please read it with an
open mind. Kadile was incredibly sloppy in his practice, and, if any
doctor, regardless of discipline, was to be as asloppy as him, I would
advocate having their license pulled.

Look, he administered the wrong kind of chelation to one patient. Even
if chelation is a proper treatment, a point on which we disagree, he did
it wrong.

Jan can never admit ANY "alternative practitioner" could EVER do
anything wrong. It would devastate her world view.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

Jan can never admit ANY "alternative practitioner" could EVER do
anything wrong. It would devastate her world view.

Which is based on the premise that since MDs make mistakes,
all of medicine is bunk. Accepting that alts aren't perfect
would leave her open to the reciprocal arguments.

Not that logic or consistency matter to her, mind.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

Jan can never admit ANY "alternative practitioner" could EVER do
anything wrong. It would devastate her world view.

Which is based on the premise that since MDs make mistakes,
all of medicine is bunk. Accepting that alts aren't perfect
would leave her open to the reciprocal arguments.

Not that logic or consistency matter to her, mind.

But refusing to admit that alts can make mistakes too forces her into
defending ridiculous and shameful things. I guess she doesn't mind doing
that.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

Jan can never admit ANY "alternative practitioner" could EVER do
anything wrong. It would devastate her world view.

Which is based on the premise that since MDs make mistakes,
all of medicine is bunk. Accepting that alts aren't perfect
would leave her open to the reciprocal arguments.

Not that logic or consistency matter to her, mind.

But refusing to admit that alts can make mistakes too forces her into
defending ridiculous and shameful things. I guess she doesn't mind doing
that.

Well, DUH!

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end