Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/Archive 2

message: I removed it.  As it stands, this article is a totally factual, unslanted discussion of this case.,  Please see my last edit - I removed an unnecessary quote about Barret's claims, and made it a single sentence.Jance 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Ronz 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Because this article documents a recent event, there are really no secondary sources available of high-quality to use as references.  Hopefully in the coming months some will appear, probably in legal reviews, which we can use to strengthen the article.  As it stands now, the article's reliance on primary sources for a current event is not a problem, but that needs to change as time passes.  The secondary sources will also allow the article to be expanded with notable evaluations of the case. --Ronz 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Although secondary sources would not be required here, they certainly would add to the discussion.  I can't imagine there will not be more written about this case as time goes on, since it is the only case to date that interprets the meaning of "user" in the federal statute..  Jance 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an Los Angeles Times article? Would that qualify? Ilena 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but unless it includes some analysis from lawyers, it's not going to give us much to work with.  Do you have the ref handy? --Ronz 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarifying - what I'm looking forward to is some in-depth analysis from legal experts.  Such reference will give us interpretations to include in the article.  Newspaper's will never give such in-depth coverage, and they're more likely to publish a slightly modified press release or a superficial report instead. --Ronz 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect there will soon be quite a bit about this case, because it is the first to interpret Section 230 wrt a 'user'.  Jance 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On to secondary sources

message: Unfortunately, Ilena Rosenthal continues to defame me personally on her own web sites, and she doesn't just repeat the defamatory statements of others. She claims that she earned a victory before the Supreme Court, but there is no victory when somebody continues to hide out in Costa Rica far away from any previous court judgments against her. Claims made in the original lawsuit that involved Hulda Clark and Tim Bolen may also add Ms. Rosenthal for initiating her own defamatory statements on her own web sites, and by continuing to post these remarks on Usenet over the last 6 years. We can prove that she actually did conspire to defame me personally and professionally. The original lawsuit against Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark and up to 100 other people is still before the courts and will be heard. --Drpolevoy 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drpolevoy, that is not true here, in this discussion.  I hope you are able to prove your statements about her attempting to escape previous judgments, because they are factual statements that, if false, may be deemed defamatory and actionable.  Drpolevoy, the only defendant that brought the appeal that is this case is Ilena Rosenthal.  Your discussion about all the rest is irrelevant to this case.  I am not defending Ilena here, but I am trying to state what this case is about.  All other commentary is irrelevant to this discussion.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * So, I suppose it is okay for Ilena Rosenthal to post any bloody thing that she wants on this Wikipedia site. Nobody is attacking individuals here because of their beliefs or views of world politics. I am attempting to provide your readers with factual information about the present lawsuit before the courts in California that will be heard shortly. Again, if Rosenthal continues to post defamatory statements on her own blogs, web sites and Usenet, then she can be included in any future legal actions. That is a legal opinion about the facts in the case. Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark will face the music very soon, and this web page will be the perfect place to keep up to date. Drpolevoy 03:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * She can't put her legal opinions on the site, and neither can you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is the legal opinion of one court - the CA Supreme Court.  There is only one question before this court - was Rosenthal immune from liability for the statement about stalking?  That really is it.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Terry Polevoy. Indeed, in a unanimous court decision,in a case before the Supreme Court of California decided November 20, 2006 now called Barrett Vs Rosenthal, I won and you lost.  I know it is not pleasant for you right now. The Remittitur was issued on 12/21/2006. . This quote might be making you uncomfortable. Costs, if any, shall be awarded by the Court of Appeal. I noticed on Usenet you claimed I was in "exile" ... this may be a fantasy of yours. I travel freely in this world. Your continual obsession (several years now) about my marriage and my physical whereabouts concerns me, my family, my friends, and my legal team enormously. Thank you for giving me a good opportunity to post the reference to this update to this case. Ilena 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Don't bait others, Ilena.  Speaking down to people isn't very nice, is divisive, and really does the community no good in the long run.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that all of this extraneous personal dispute is not relevant here.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My humble apologies. Would it be possible to have the information on the Remittitur posted on this page?[?Sending jungle New Years Greetings of health and healing to all. Ilena 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Oh, it's hardly extraneous - the talk page has become X v. Rosenthal all over again.  Ilena is being tried again in the halls of this talk page, and it's not what Wikipedia is for.  We are not a court of law, we are not a soapbox, we are an an encyclopedia.  We do not deal in truth, we deal in verifiable facts.  I find it improper and unnecessarily divisive that Ilena is being harassed as she is by these users, but I also feel that she has made her own mistakes too, and she is not exempt for her own misconduct because of the misconduct of others.  We are here to write an encyclopedia, and this is really just poisoning the well, this dispute.  The beauty of Wikipedia is all of us, working together.  So lets do that - all of us. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected.  I meant only that it was not pertinent to the writing of this article.  I agree that this is harassment.  Jance 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I got that, and you're correct.  What's happening here on the talk page needed addressed too, however.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenient Section Break 

message: # There is no source for the "Statements" section.
# The section is now a lede which misrepresents the case.  It is not correct, legally or factually.  At issue is not an email Bolen sent.  At issue was whether or not  Section 230 provided immunity, for Rosenthal's republication of a statement made by Bolen, as against Polvenoy.  This statement was an accusation that Polvenoy stalked a radio host.  None of the other verbiage now in this section is correct.
# All other statements were adjudicated by more than one court to be non-defamatory.  I will add that this does not mean the statements were nice or non-inflammatory.  It does mean that they were not legally defamatory.   Hyperbole and opinion are never defamatory, which is evidently something not understood here.
# The state supreme court did not address any statement as against Barrett.  This case is Barrett v. Rosenthal and is the state supreme court case.   
# Even Barrett's attorney evidently did not evidently understand the meaning of "actual malice" in the context of defamation - although, I will point out that this is very basic to an understanding of defamation. Curtis does not understand the meaning of libel, or what was going on here.  One does not  have to condone inflammatory statements to understand that hyperbole is not libel. The court explained this at length.  The court explained that the tone of the material is irrelevant to libel.  Freedom of speech is a constitutional right for a reason.Jance 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a tiny correction: At issue was a republication by Rosenthal of statements made by Bolen, ...it was regarding just one statement. Thanks very much. Ilena 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, and I changed it.  This article is about a state supreme court case.  Only one statement is at issue in this case, and that is the one you mention.  The introductory paragraph as written is factually incorrect, and misleading.   Jance 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Ronz.  It was badly misstated, and POV.  I am not sure if it still isnt, so leaving the tag is probably a good thing.Jance 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Statement

message: These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... Perspective:  How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users, bloggers, Wikipedia, ISP's etc. Ilena 22:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly why the "Statement" section leading into this is utterly inappropriate.Jance 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two very good accounts of this case ... one from Law.com 

message: I made a couple of changes to the more egregious errors.  The court did not declare the statements defamatory.  In fact, it was just the contrary.  Most of the statements that Rosenthal republished were decleared by the court to be "hyperbole" and "opinion", therefore non-defamatory.
I could not let this stand.  It is not right.  One cannot rewrite history, and the law.  Also, I might point out that "legally liable" is redundant.Jance 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of changes

message: Can anyone tell me the purpose of the section "Statements.." ?   The court's findings are stated in subsequent sections.   The introductory section is the brief statement of the case.  So what is the purpose of the "Statements" section, except to show how inflammatory some of the statements were?  Also, whoever added that provided no reference.  It is not a true statement to say the courts called these statements defamatory.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  And "truth" or "falisty" was never an issue, because the statements were opinion.  Will someone please stop with the soapboxes?  And I say that about either side.  Jance 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant

message: Should we have a link to the e-mail that Ilena Rosenthal reposted?
This is the email that started her involvement in this whole sordid affair.
Interested readers could click on a link to read it for themselves.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/sleazy.htm Emilydcksn 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pertinent E-mail 

message: Thanks to Fyslee for making needed cleaning up edits.  I also learned something, about Wiki referencing by reviewing these edits.  (I am accustomed to Id and was not sure how to handle this on Wikipedia.)Jance 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks Fyslee

message: The section describing Mr. Bolen that just got reverted to is  just more POV from Barrett's camp and Barrett's vanity webpages. Although Wikipedia is filled with Barrett's publicists, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another Barrett webpage. Mr. Bolen's organization indeed should be listed, not just another smear against him by a plaintiffs using wikipedia to attempt to influence their case. Ilena 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be kept as it was until more editors weigh in. --Ronz 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed per Ilena's request. The company is listed with that title in the Ca online business portal. I would request that Ilena stop with the inflammatory accusations and personal attacks against other Wiki editors.--Emilydcksn 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I was just going to ask about that, & am glad you looked it up, Emily.  I also agree re sniping & inflammatory remarks.  On everyone's part.Jance 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Bolen and Jurimed 

message: Since a lot of the nastiest back-and-forth has been over external links (or so it seems from a glance at WP:AN/I), why not just cut all the external links except that to the actual court decision? External links in general add very little value to an article compared to the amount of controversy they stir up. The court decision itself (from the state of CA website) is an ideal external link. The others are spin, pro or con. Why not remove all of the other external links, in the interest of both tightening up the article and averting endless disagreement? If one of the linked sources is reliable and relevant, describe what it says in the article (e.g. under a "Reactions to the ruling" section or something) and cite the website as a source. Just a thought, given that things seem to be going in circles. I'll go away now. MastCell 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would sound to me to be a very reasonable suggestion, and I think I'll do so now.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: OK, there seems to be some frequent reverting on the description of Bolen. The two contenders are "President of Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group, Inc." and "a self-described "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners". Since both of these are accurate descriptions, what about combining them into the following: "Patrick Timothy Bolen, President of Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group and a self-described "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners..."? Compromise, anyone? I do think the external link to Bolen's site is inappropriate and should not be included (in keeping with trimming superfluous and controversial external links in general). MastCell 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the website makes claims that have merit, they should be easily found on a reliable source.  The site in question itself fails RS.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Can you tell I am tired?  Thanks for explaining, and absolutely.Jance 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *good by me.Jance 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll edit it in, then.... — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the "POV" tag be removed now?  I agreed with Ronz that it was warrented, before our recent edits.  At that time, it not only was POV, but it was factually incorrect.  It is not, now. Jance 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise on Bolen 

message: Does it seem reasonable to now remove this tag?Jance 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who added it, I'm fine with it being removed.  Ilena may consider some of the issues she's brought up as being unresolved though.  I suppose she can add it back in if need be.  I'll remove it. --Ronz 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ronz.  Not sure it is removed - I"ll get it.  If anyone objects, (s)he can add it back.Jance 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah!  I removed off the wrong article somehow. At least one of us is paying attention. Thanks! --Ronz 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Since there is a whole article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, I removed the section that reprinted the text here and just linked to that article.  IMO, this is a better way to display this information.  I've also noticed that part could be written more clearly:
"It is an appeal of Barrett v. Clark, a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others..."
So who are the others?  I ask because later it says:
"The trial court dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California anti-SLAPP statute"
Which makes you wonder, who were still defendants in Clark (besides presumably someone named Clark)?  I think it would be helpful to list out some of the "et. al." in the first sentence and clarify the second a bit:
The trial court dismissed the case against Rosenthal only under the California anti-SLAPP statute, which is intended to stop lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances, though it allowed the case to continue against her co-defendants"
...or something to that effect.  It would just make this a bit clearer to a reader unfamiliar with the case.--Isotope23 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Isotope23 for your interest in this case. I believe it is a very important one, especially for a website like Wikipedia which hosts the words of others. Previously, the threat or reality of being sued for what an editor posted, could seriously limit open discussions. Much of what is posted on the internet is the work of others. This threat being erased will invigorate discussions on controversial topics ... including breast implants and health freedom.    I've been reading other articles on Wikipedia on cases covered here and both the defendants and the plaintiffs are usually given descriptions by their work. I believe Mr. Bolen should receive a first name and the name of his registered California company included. As "Rosenthal" ... I also believe my work should be identified. All traces of my websites and the fact that when I was SLAPP sued in this case, it was in relationship to my work have been expunged from the articles that mention this case. I am the head of the Humantics Foundation and a vocal breast implant awareness advocate. This was mentioned in many of the hundreds of articles on this case, but erased here. Thank you and have a lovely evening all. Ilena 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct on all counts. I have now added a wikilink to her special area of interest in women's health. She certainlhy deserves that. This way it is there without being added in an improper or distracting manner (such as a link in the "See also" section). -- Fyslee 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a couple of things

message: As Barrett Vs Rosenthal is a part of Fyslee and my arbitration, perhaps the appropriate arbitration comment link should be noted. Thank you. Ilena 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there similar links about Arbitration Disputes? Thank you. Ilena 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of.  The conduct of people involved is what is the matter, not the article per se, so except in some extraordinary cases such notices are not used.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. You were so right on when you made the Mediation Request that fyslee refused to participate in. It is about BvR ... and ro my experienced opinion, 9especially after reading unfactual comments made today again on the case) is that the plaintiff's are attempting to retry the case here. My comments on the Arbritration will reveal how this all fits together. Thank you and I hope your life gets better every day. Ilena 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mediation Comments 

message: But without secondary coverage, there's no way to tell whether the alleged future fee-shifting might merit inclusion.  There are mountains of raw data in the world, and plucking small bits of them out is the essence of original research—even without synthesis.  We've just no way of knowing whether these data are given fair weight in the article.  Additionally, without any interpretive coverage it's difficult to know whether we're even understanding the court correctly.  It seems to me that you've totally misunderstood the significance of this order. The court is just ordering a bond for a fee shifting award that may or may not be granted. Section 1030 of the California Civil Procedure Code says that all foreign parties and corporations have to post bond like this—it's not even an order suggesting that Barrett will lose.  Here's an except from Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sec. 1030:
::(a) When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, "attorney's fees" means reasonable attorney's fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.
::(b) The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney's fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding. [...]
::(d) The plaintiff shall file the undertaking not later than 30 days after service of the court's order requiring it or within a greater time allowed by the court. If the plaintiff fails to file the undertaking within the time allowed, the plaintiff's action or special proceeding shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.
Notice (d) says that if Barrett fails to pay, his action will simply be dismissed. The statute exists to protect Californians from harassment by outside parties who may not be able to pay attorneys fees.  It is nothing like a judgment on the merits.  This is my original research, and I tend to think it's a little bit more informed than Levine's.  However, no original research belongs in this article. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It totally sounds like you are more informed in these mattters than I. I certainly will bow to your expertise here. I think waiting to see how this plays out before we insert this information into the article is a good idea (or until it is reported upon by a reliable secondary source. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a law student who should be studying for exams right now... But it does seem like this is just a preliminary formality.  Awards for attorneys' fee shifting (if any) will happen later. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Well if you have time to take another study break, I'd love your feedback about the resource I am linking to below. I am too much of a layman when it comes to law to know if there is anything useful there for this article, but I imagine there must be. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation of court order is OR and probably incorrect

message: This is a disingenuous edit summary because it makes it appear as if there is no need for consensus on Wikipedia. The edit does not match the fact we have a consensus policy: don't need consensus for V and RS used properly, though you might consider adding to it :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that consensus (or even WP:consensus) does not trump NOR or NPOV. AvB ÷ talk 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Avb. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First. Consensus cannot overide NOR or NPOV policies. Second. We have no consensus. Third. Dematt is saying: Thank you to AvB. Why? Because Dematt realizes AvB is correct. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the play be play, QG. You need to work on your logic tree a little, but you're getting there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Dematt: You need to work on your logic tree a little, but you're getting there. This is a vague, illogical statement. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're on different sides of the same logic tree? AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that gives me way too much credit, thanks though ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: misleading edit summary by Dematt

message: Alameda.Court.CA - here is a repository of related court information from Barrett v. Clark case. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful resource