Re: The Rosenthal Case: A Translation

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

Quoted message said:

No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...
the Opinion they are quoting from was vacated months ago and the new
one bears little resemblance to their reruns.

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

Peter Moran

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

[snip impotent falsehoods]

[quote]
The Rosenthal Case: A Translation

My conclusion? Rosenthal loses, big time. No new territory is covered by
the
affirmation of the lower court's opinions regarding Grell and Barrett.
Barrett
was wrong in suing over Rosenthal's insults (though his feelings are
understandable), and Grell was wrong in entering the suit as a plaintiff,
suing
Rosenthal, and encouraging Barrett to sue.

However, the court was clearly distressed by the lower court's actions
considering Polevoy, and was adamant in its opinion thereof: "[N]o reason
appears why Rosenthal cannot be subjected to such liability, the trial court
erred in finding that appellant Polevoy's defamation claim was barred by the
statute." Opinion at 36-37 Rosenthal's actions "reflected actual malice."
Opinion at 40


"The record does not show, and Rosenthal has never claimed, that Bolen
created
or developed this information and furnished it to her under circumstances in
which a reasonable person in her position would conclude that it was
provided
for publication on the Internet or other 'interactive computer service.'"
Opinion at 4, Footnote 4

Translation: Only an unreasonable person would have transmitted the
information for public consumption, ie, that Rosenthal abused her position
or
acted unreasonably.

The decision simply reaffirms that insulting someone may not be defamation.
That's nothing new. On the other hand, it also reaffirms that making an
accusation that someone is engaged in criminal activity (ie, "stalking"😉,
rises
far above a simple insult. That could be either libel or slander, depending
upon the manner in which it is conveyed, and whether or not injury can be
proved. So calling Barrett a "quack" isn't necessarily defamatory, but
stating
that Polevoy IS a stalker could be.

"The charge of commission of some kind of crime is obviously libel per
se." (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 482, citing, generally,
50
Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander § 27 et seq.; Edwards v. San Jose Printing &
Publishing Soc. (1893) 99 Cal. 431; Boyich v. Howell (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d
801.) (Opinion at 43)


This is why the court affirmed the case as it applied to Barrett but
reversed
and remanded (sent it back to the lower court) for Polevoy. The Appellate
court clearly believes that there are merits to Polevoy's claims.

More to the point:
"We find that the immunity available. does not bar the imposition
of liability in this case, that malice and reckless disregard for the truth
can
be inferred from the circumstances, which include the failure to conduct a
reasonable investigation regarding the truth of the accusation of criminal
conduct and reliance on obviously biased sources, and that Polevoy was not
required to plead special damages, as the republished statement was libelous
per se." Opinion, 10-11

That's pretty self-explanatory.

I found this interesting: "We agree with appellants that the statute cannot
be
deemed to abrogate the common law principle that one who republishes
defamatory
matter originated by a third person is subject to liability if he or she
knows
or has reason to know of its defamatory character." Opinion at 13

This is to prevent a "clever libeler" from using a Third Party to convey his
or
her defamatory statements - something that had struck me as an idea when I
started reading this opinion. In other words, Person A wants to spread some
bit of salacious defamation in public, but doesn't want to be held liable
for
it. Therefore, Person A conveys it to Person B, who then spreads it far and
wide. Person A didn't spread it, and therefore wouldn't be liable. But
Person
B is only repeating what Person A said, and therefore shouldn't be liable.
Uh
uh, says the court. No way - in this case, given the biased nature of
Bolen,
Rosenthal, were she reasonable and given her position, was probably in a
position to determine the defamatory character of the information: "Given
the
close relationship Rosenthal had with Bolen, the longstanding hostility
between
Bolen and Polevoy, and the very substance of Bolen's accusations against
Polevoy, Rosenthal must have been on notice of Bolen's enmity." Opinion at
39


Later on the in opinion, as to the issue of Rosenthal's SLAPP motion, the
court
makes it clear that Rosenthal never based her SLAPP claim on the issue of
the
defamatory statements, but on the issue of malice and damages: "[H]er
special
motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute was not based on the truth of
the
statements that Polevoy engaged in criminal conduct nor did it deny she knew
or
had reason to know of the defamatory character of these statements. The
motion
was based solely on the grounds of the federal immunity, appellants
inability
to show actual malice, and their failure to plead special damages.
Furthermore,
Rosenthal has never asserted that, due to the technology or for any other
reason, she could not easily withdraw and/or correct the allegedly
defamatory
materials she posted." Opinion at 36

As to the issue of malice, the court said: "We do not believe these three
findings (the findings of the trial court) support the conclusion that
appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence of malice. On the contrary,
we
conclude that respondent Rosenthal's complete reliance upon sources known to
be
biased against appellant Polevoy provided her "obvious reasons to doubt the
veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports." (McCoy v. Hearst
Corp., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 860.)" Opinion at 38-39

"Rosenthal's failure to consult a reliable source to verify a facially
questionable accusation of criminal conduct supports appellants' claims that
she entertained serious doubts as to the truth or falsity of the
communication,
and that her complete reliance on sources she knew to be biased, and
therefore
unreliable, reflected actual malice. Complete reliance on sources known to
be
biased-which, as we have said, is more than the mere failure to
investigate-reflects on Rosenthal's subjective attitude and strongly
suggests
she entertained serious doubts regarding the truth of Bolen's accusations,
certainly after she received notice of their false and defamatory
character."
Opinion at 40

"Here the defendant not only failed to consult any reliable source as to the
accuracy of criminal charges after being repeatedly notified they were false
and defamatory, and instead consulted sources she knew to be biased against
the
accused, but she subsequently reposted the allegedly defamatory accusations
32
times." Opinion at 41

Then the opinion goes on to say that the trial court's decision on damages
was
based in part on their conclusion that Polevoy couldn't prove malice. But
because Polevoy can probably prove malice, then there is no need to prove
special damages: "as we have explained, Polevoy may be able to show malice;
and a public figure plaintiff who can do so need not plead special damage
if,
as is also the case here, the alleged defamation consists of libel (or
slander)
per se." Opinion at 42

" 'Special damage' means that the loss sustained by the plaintiff must be a
particular loss, of a material nature, supported by specific evidence. Thus,
'special
damage' is to be contrasted with the 'general damage' that was traditionally
presumed from the publication of a libel or any of the imputations that come
within the rules of slander per se." (2 Harper et al., The Law of Torts,
supra,
§ 5.14, at p. 114.)" Opinion at 41, Footnote 18

As to the issue of Grell, the court found him culpable because not only did
he
erringly advocate for Barrett's suit against Rosenthal, but that he also
entered the case as a plaintiff and named Rosenthal as a defendant in his
own
personal suit.

In the end, the court believes in the distinct possibility that Rosenthal
was
acting out of malice and that Polevoy could prevail on his claims of
defamation. Rosenthal cannot hide behind the claim that she was simply
repeating the claims of Bolen, and that she did not engage in reasonable
behavior for a person in her position.
[end quote]

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: The Rosenthal Case: A Translation
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 2/18/2004 12:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...
the Opinion they are quoting from was vacated months ago and the new
one bears little resemblance to their reruns.

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

Peter Moran

Look who is talking about posting trash.

Nothing about it reflects to your credit.

Peter Moran wrote:

All medical advances have entailed risk, ever since the first caveman said"I
wonder what this berry does?".

Using retroviruses to try and correct lethal and potentially lethal gene
defects is a very legitimate and logic alavenue of medical research. So this is
nothing to do with "conspiracies", "coverups" .

It is a matter of the quality of informed consent that was applied. It would
be unusual these days for such issues to not be addressed carefully by the
researchers and the ethics committees to which all clinical trials are
submitted these days. We cannot know how culpable the doctors are from this
rather emotive news item.
===
Peter can not see how culpable Dr Wilson was.

============

Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger’s home in
Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.

Documents

• Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
experiments.
• March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
therapy experiment.

(No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson’s team had never told him
that anyone had ever raised questions about safety

(That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.)

ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring through
Penn’s records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of
startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had covered
up problems and broken basic test rules.

In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse’s got sick. And two of them
died.

(No coverup there)

The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn’t get visibly ill,
if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called “grade
3,” the experiment was supposed to be “halted” immediately.
Records show there were “grade 3” reactions in more than one
patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got
permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have
been the cause.
The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again, citing
another unusual condition.
But when it happened a third time, they didn’t stop, didn’t call.
Then, a fourth time. They didn’t stop or call then either

(No coverups there).

For their own safety, volunteers weren’t supposed to have a blood
ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels and
without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70.
When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but
records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the
experiment, his reading was 114 — more than double the original safety limit.

(That's way cool huh Peter???)

HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in other
volunteers, even to Jesse’s own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson’s team
allowed the experiment to continue?

(Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)

At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved Dr.
Wilson’s arrangement with Genovo.
In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood to
profit, too.

(Hmmmmmmmmm).

In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
“should have been shared with the FDA sooner.”

(Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey deaths.
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in
prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his family
to make any kind of informed decision.”

(Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)

CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures had
also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse reactions.
But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to stamp
those reactions “confidential,” classifying them as trade secrets to
protect their research investments.
So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.

(TRust the government!!!)

“I was outraged,” says Paul. “I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
know.

(Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).

In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson
filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations

REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!

Dr. Wilson filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and
deliberately violated regulations

(No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)

This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger’s death. At
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson

****is still on the faculty****

(Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)

****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****

****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***

but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for medical
volunteers.

******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his family
thought they could trust.*********

==========

One thing Peter doesn't lack is being a total hypocrite!!!

Jan

In article
<[email hidden]
..au>,

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...
the Opinion they are quoting from was vacated months ago and the new
one bears little resemblance to their reruns.

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

I've pointed such things out before. For instance, her enemies list on
her website reflects far, far more poorly on her than it does on any of
the enemies she lists there. She either can't grasp this concept or
doesn't care.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Orac said:

In article
<[email hidden]
.au>,

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...
the Opinion they are quoting from was vacated months ago and the new
one bears little resemblance to their reruns.

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

I've pointed such things out before. For instance, her enemies list on
her website reflects far, far more poorly on her than it does on any of
the enemies she lists there. She either can't grasp this concept or
doesn't care.

I think that at this point, she's simply emotionally incapable of
grasping it. She's so utterly convinced of her own righteousness that
the idea of her doing anything wrong is simply incomprensible to her.

Similarly, anyone who criticizes or disagrees with her in any way is
an *enemy*. I'm sure the shrinks have a fancy name for this sort of
pathology, but I don't know what it is. I mean, when you look at how
the home page of her organization is basically a shrine to the
wonderfulness of Ilena (and her terrible sufferings at the hands of
those awful people like Barrett), you get some idea of what sort of
personality you're dealing with.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: The Rosenthal Case: A Translation
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 2/18/2004 7:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Orac said:

In article
<[email hidden]
.au>,

Peter Moran said:

"Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
> Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...
> the Opinion they are quoting from was vacated months ago and the new
> one bears little resemblance to their reruns.

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating

Tim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

I've pointed such things out before. For instance, her enemies list on
her website reflects far, far more poorly on her than it does on any of
the enemies she lists there. She either can't grasp this concept or
doesn't care.

I think that at this point, she's simply emotionally incapable of
grasping it. She's so utterly convinced of her own righteousness that
the idea of her doing anything wrong is simply incomprensible to her.

Similarly, anyone who criticizes or disagrees with her in any way is
an *enemy*. I'm sure the shrinks have a fancy name for this sort of
pathology, but I don't know what it is. I mean, when you look at how
the home page of her organization is basically a shrine to the
wonderfulness of Ilena (and her terrible sufferings at the hands of
those awful people like Barrett), you get some idea of what sort of
personality you're dealing with.

Unhummmm.

Quoted message said:

When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it

generates comments about your own.

Quoted message said:

David Wright

In article <[email hidden]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Orac said:

In article
<[email hidden]
.au>,
"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to? It has
nothing to do with truth or decency. Nothing about it reflects to your
credit.

I've pointed such things out before. For instance, her enemies list on
her website reflects far, far more poorly on her than it does on any of
the enemies she lists there. She either can't grasp this concept or
doesn't care.

I think that at this point, she's simply emotionally incapable of
grasping it. She's so utterly convinced of her own righteousness that
the idea of her doing anything wrong is simply incomprensible to her.

Yes, I've noticed that. Her extreme self-righteousness is one of her
less endearing qualities. Occasionally she has shown some glimmers of
self-awareness about this, but only very rarely. For the most part, if
you're not with her unequivocally on breast implants, you must be
against her. Any position less radical than demanding unequivocally that
breast implants be immediately banned for all time has a high
probability of resulting in her labeling you a "shill" for Quackwatch,
the pharmaceutical industry, conventional medicine, the manufacturers of
implants, etc.

Quoted message said:

Similarly, anyone who criticizes or disagrees with her in any way is
an *enemy*.

Agreed. She seems so invested in her cause and her own perceived
righteousness that anyone who disagrees with her, criticizes her
actions, or questions her must automatically either work for Quackwatch
or be a "shill" for the pharmacuetical industry--in other words, an
enemy to be attacked. And attack she does--on her website and on Usenet.
Anyone who speculates about her motives is attacked as trying to "put
words in her mouth."

Quoted message said:

I'm sure the shrinks have a fancy name for this sort of
pathology, but I don't know what it is. I mean, when you look at how
the home page of her organization is basically a shrine to the
wonderfulness of Ilena (and her terrible sufferings at the hands of
those awful people like Barrett), you get some idea of what sort of
personality you're dealing with.

It is rather telling to note what a large fraction of the website is
devoted to the detailed accounting of her own personal travails, her own
self-promotion and self-justification, and the vicious trashing of her
perceived enemies.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No surprise that Barrett & Polevoy's Publicist, cross dressing Coward
Ted "Nana" Nidiffer is posting another's outdated disinformation ...

Quoted message said:

Why not state clearly here why you were able to get away with repeating Tim
Bolen's libellous trash, if this is what you are referring to?

You, like the rest of the Quack Team are just spreading more
disinformation ... obviously you have not read or do not understand
the new Opinion of the Appeals Court ... and its addendum.

They are linked to my website ...

www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm