If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert aka Will Ketcher LYING FOR STEPHEN BARRETT STILL
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 *** |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert aka Will Ketcher LYING FOR STEPHEN BARRETT STILL
Then we can assume you aren't planning on being present for the April
25, 2006 hearing in Alameda? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert aka Will Ketcher LYING FOR STEPHEN BARRETT STILL
Ilena Rose wrote:
LOL ... yesterday Probert claimed that there was a hearing on the Barrett vs Ilena Rosenthal SLAPP suit. I pointed out that you are incorrect in saying that I am Will Ketcher. Examine the NNTP posting hosts and you will see for yourself. 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. As for the factual issue of whether there is an appeal still pending in that suit: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...id=312161&rc=1 Court Case Search Results - Supreme Court Court data last updated: 02/18/2006 02:53 PM Case Summary Supreme Court Case: S122953 Court of Appeal Case(s): First Appellate District, Division Two A096451 Case Caption: BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL Case Category: Review - Civil Appeal Start Date: 03/01/2004 Case Status: fully briefed Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal vacated in part and otherwise affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike. This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230) confer absolute immunity on an Internet "provider" or "user" who republishes statements made by third parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2) What is the meaning of the term "user" under the Act? (3) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the "user" engaged in active or passive conduct? --------------- Thus, the court records clearly support that there is still a pending appeal. As for the merits of the case... I have told you numerous times that, as a believer in the First Amendment, and as a person who considers Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to have been one of the finest SCOTUS jurists, I support your position wholeheartedly, as I hope that the decision is a win for everyone to exercise their rights under the First Amendment. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mark S Probert posting his own family's names and then lying about it | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 2 | February 16th 06 03:02 AM |
I Have NOT Seen An Apology From Mark Probert Yet! | Jan | Kids Health | 1 | January 5th 06 01:58 PM |
More on Mark Probert | mike | Kids Health | 12 | December 7th 05 10:37 PM |
Barrett/Polevoy Flack Mark S Probert has become Unglued | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 16 | March 4th 05 08:36 PM |
Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 81 | August 29th 04 11:52 PM |