Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > August 2005 > Barrett / NCAHF Totally Discredited in Court ... Uses Weedkiller to attack Critics





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Barrett / NCAHF Totally Discredited in Court ... Uses Weedkiller to attack Critics
Ilena Rose

2005-08-18, 8:59 am

Huge Loss for the Quack Team ...

That's why the use "Publicists" from the Ragtag Posse to attempt to
harm their critic's credibility ...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...3fa3dce3e067ef9

EXCERPTS:


"Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff
in itscase in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through
cross-examination ofthe Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants
Defendants motion anddirects that judgment shall be entered in favor
of the Defendant, andagainst Plaintiff, as set forth below."


"In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no
investigation concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to
no real knowledgeas to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had
not seen any of theproducts prior to the trial."


C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts


"Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett
arebiased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be
accordedtheir testimony is slight in any event....


....Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr.
Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on
behalfof NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the
instant action andthereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund
described by Dr. Barrett.

It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal
financialinterest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of
these factors,Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous
advocates of thePlaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or
dispassionate witnessesor experts. In light of these affiliations and
their orientation, it canfairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson
are themselves the client, andtherefore their testimony should be
accorded little, if any, credibility onthat basis as well.

~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/quackbustersvsilena.htm
Barrett Loses to Ilena Rosenthal in Court

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/nanaweedkiller.htm
Barrett / NCAHF shill attacks Rosenthal after Barrett Loss

Copyright 2003 - 2008 pahealthsystems.com