Mark Probert aka Will Ketcher LYING FOR STEPHEN BARRETT STILL

Little Willy Probert ... if there is a hearing on Barrett's case
against me ... please post the details since you apparently know
something the court hasn't recorded on their websites.

No mention of April 26th ... perhaps you are confusing me with another
of their SLAPP suits.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...&doc_id=312161
Supreme court

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...id=48389&div=2
Appelate Court

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...ersvsilena.htm

LOL ... yesterday Probert claimed that there was a hearing on the
Barrett vs Ilena Rosenthal SLAPP suit.

He was lying of course ...

The fact is Barrett and his malicious prosecutor Christopher Grell
have lost all appeals to me in this case ... and Probert's little
Willy was just spreading more lies for Barrett.


http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...tm#LittleWilly
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006

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

Ilena wrote in message ...


Little Willy Probert ... if there is a hearing on Barrett's case
against me ... please post the details since you apparently know
something the court hasn't recorded on their websites.

No mention of April 26th ... perhaps you are confusing me with another
of their SLAPP suits.


http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...=0&doc_id=3121
61
Supreme court


http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...=1&doc_id=4838
9&div=2
Appelate Court

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...ersvsilena.htm

LOL ... yesterday Probert claimed that there was a hearing on the
Barrett vs Ilena Rosenthal SLAPP suit.

He was lying of course ...

The fact is Barrett and his malicious prosecutor Christopher Grell
have lost all appeals to me in this case ... and Probert's little
Willy was just spreading more lies for Barrett.


http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...tm#LittleWilly
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g....cfm?dist=1&do
c_id=48389&div=2









Ilena wrote in message ...

Little Willy Probert ... if there is a hearing on Barrett's case
against me ... please post the details since you apparently know
something the court hasn't recorded on their websites.

No mention of April 26th ... perhaps you are confusing me with another
of their SLAPP suits.


http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...=0&doc_id=3121
61
Supreme court


http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...=1&doc_id=4838
9&div=2
Appelate Court

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...ersvsilena.htm

LOL ... yesterday Probert claimed that there was a hearing on the
Barrett vs Ilena Rosenthal SLAPP suit.

He was lying of course ...

The fact is Barrett and his malicious prosecutor Christopher Grell
have lost all appeals to me in this case ... and Probert's little
Willy was just spreading more lies for Barrett.


http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...tm#LittleWilly
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Coleah wrote:
Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006

The website does not clarify what the case is on calendar for, other
than the mention of oral argument. I suspect that this lower appeals
court argument will address Timmy Bolen's claims directly, and Ms.
Rosenthal is out of the picture insofar as this proceeding.

The Supreme Court appeal regarding Ms. Rosenthal is full briefed. They
may schedule oral arguments on it. I have no idea.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Coleah wrote:
Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006

The website does not clarify what the case is on calendar for, other than
the mention of oral argument. I suspect that this lower appeals court
argument will address Timmy Bolen's claims directly, and Ms. Rosenthal is
out of the picture insofar as this proceeding.

The Supreme Court appeal regarding Ms. Rosenthal is full briefed. They may
schedule oral arguments on it. I have no idea.

Well, where is Susan, to say Who cares?

The docket clearly states Barrett vs Rosenthal. It doesn't address
Bolen. I would suspect that 'oral arguments' would imply not written.
It seems someone would need to be present to be oral or to vocalize.

JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Coleah wrote:
Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006
The website does not clarify what the case is on calendar for, other than
the mention of oral argument. I suspect that this lower appeals court
argument will address Timmy Bolen's claims directly, and Ms. Rosenthal is
out of the picture insofar as this proceeding.

The Supreme Court appeal regarding Ms. Rosenthal is full briefed. They may
schedule oral arguments on it. I have no idea.

Well, where is Susan, to say Who cares?

Why post in such an argumentative manner? The issue wrt the court
proceedings was raised by others, and I was attempting to provide
clarification of that.

Why do you have this insane need to argue and start fights?

Will Ketcher wrote:
The docket clearly states Barrett vs Rosenthal. It doesn't address
Bolen. I would suspect that 'oral arguments' would imply not written.
It seems someone would need to be present to be oral or to vocalize.


Bolen was an original party to the case, and, clearly still is. The
docket just lists the first party, and not the second, etc.

I went to the CA Supreme Court website and searched on Bolen and found:

S122953 A096451 833021-5
BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Coleah wrote:
Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006
The website does not clarify what the case is on calendar for, other
than the mention of oral argument. I suspect that this lower appeals
court argument will address Timmy Bolen's claims directly, and Ms.
Rosenthal is out of the picture insofar as this proceeding.

The Supreme Court appeal regarding Ms. Rosenthal is full briefed. They
may schedule oral arguments on it. I have no idea.

Well, where is Susan, to say Who cares?

Why post in such an argumentative manner?

Which part of my question did you consider argumentative?

I note you don't consider it argumentative when Susan asks it.

Why is that Mark?



The issue wrt the court
proceedings was raised by others, and I was attempting to provide
clarification of that.

Why do you have this insane need to argue and start fights?

Fact is, I don't. The title of this thread has YOUR name in it!

WHY did YOU start this LIE, Mark?

JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Coleah wrote:
Court Case Search Results - First Appellate District

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
Division 2
Case Number A096451
Future Scheduled Actions

"Petition for review granted in Supreme Court"
Court Date: 4/25/2006
The website does not clarify what the case is on calendar for, other
than the mention of oral argument. I suspect that this lower appeals
court argument will address Timmy Bolen's claims directly, and Ms.
Rosenthal is out of the picture insofar as this proceeding.

The Supreme Court appeal regarding Ms. Rosenthal is full briefed. They
may schedule oral arguments on it. I have no idea.
Well, where is Susan, to say Who cares?
Why post in such an argumentative manner?

Which part of my question did you consider argumentative?

I note you don't consider it argumentative when Susan asks it.

Why is that Mark?



The issue wrt the court
proceedings was raised by others, and I was attempting to provide
clarification of that.

Why do you have this insane need to argue and start fights?

Fact is, I don't. The title of this thread has YOUR name in it!

WHY did YOU start this LIE, Mark?

I did NOT start any lie. In fact, I have posted links and URLs which
show that there is a legal proceeding on 4/26/06.

However, if you read my posts, which are all under my own name, you will
see that I have been trying to post verifiable information which can
resolve the confusion. Try actually reading what I wrote for a change,
instead of knee-jerking your usual bull****.

And, compare the headers and NNTP posting hosts for Will Ketcher and me.
Not even close.