Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill
Posted by Pat on 3/05/05
Dear ff: You are looking for motive. Therefore, I should have mentioned this
already: The motive of the corporate exec is: Stock Price & Bonus incentives,
which often consists in the form of additional shares of stocks posted to the
CEO's personal account. Plus, it is a little more than reasonably apparent that pesiticide company
execs, fragrance company execs, and chemical company execs fear that parts of
their product line will be banned like Chlordane & DDT was. And concerning some
banned pesticides, they have "half-lives" that linger for decades. We need
creative research departments in those three industries. On 3/05/05, ff wrote:
> Ozark's Lawyer:
>
> 3/04/05
>
> How does a person become someone that enjoys, and
>> profits, from damaging others?
>>
>> ff
>
> 3/05/05
>
> Assume it happens. Is this something that is learned behavior or do they
> start out that way?
>
> I'd like to know more about what makes these people tick, and I doubt it's
> all just dollars. They have to be at least corruptible in the first place.
> What forces are at work to cause alignments such as the Gots reference?
> Does he have a conscience, does he actually believe he's right, or was he
> just so greedy that he took advantage of an opportunity with total disregard
> for those adversely affected?
>
> Sorry about the ? marks, but you don't have to have answers to post here.
> Like Pat said, seek answers. Offer information when you can.
>
> ff
>
> ff
>>
>>
>> On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
>>> Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated
>> effort
>>> of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been
>> reported
>>> in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid
>> $10,000
>>> for one article to discredit MCS. This is why these people must be held
>>> accountable. Of course, such a lawsuit would include the companies and
>>> not merely the propagandists. It's just like the tobacco lobby days.
>>>
>>> Now, concerning fatal errors of the proganda machine:
>>>
>>> 1a] They can mock MCS all that they want. It does not take away the fact
>>> that mainstream medicine already recognized Chemical Sensitivity "in
>>> case-specific form." And of course, the propaganda machine's objective
>>> was to convince the public that chemical-bearing should be allowed to
>>> proliferate everywhere, at regulation levels. And to do this, they
>> needed
>>> to convince the public that no one at any time ever suffers adverse
>>> ractivity from any chemical at low-to-moderate levels. So, they made the
>>> MCS suffer the scapegoat, calling each one mentally ill. But, they
>>> overlooked the fact that the exact same chemicals are avoided by asthma
>>> patients who did fail the very physiological ABG test, etc. Thus, on
>>> account of the duly diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those chemical-bearing
>>> substance must be harnassed.
>>>
>>> 1b] The propagandists always mention that the AAAAI rejected MCS as a
>>> valid diagnosis, in its official position statement. But, they never
>>> mentioned that, in the exact same statement, the AAAAI expressly
>>> recognized as valid the diagnostic title, "Building-related Illness."
>> And
>>> of course, that is Sick Building Syndrome + lingering sensitivies. Sick
>>> Building Syndrome (SBS) is also regarded as a cousion of MCS, by the way.
>>> So, the propaganda machine needed to discredit SBS as much as MCS. The
>>> AAAAI thwarted the propagand machine. As well, Fumento wrote a
>>> sterotypically sarcastic article, mocking Sick Building Syndrome, as well
>>> as an additional one or two, mocking the perfume sensitivity that
>> afflicts
>>> Sick Building Syndrome sufferers. Milloy did similar. By the way, Milloy
>>> expressly advocated bringing back DDT to the market. He called the DDT
>>> ban genocidal. That is the character of the propaganda machine.
>>>
>>> 1c] By the way, the same AAAAI, in the same position statement, also
>>> recognized Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome as physiological illness
>>> and not a matter of "anxiety attacks". It also recognized
>>> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, as purely physiological and no psychiatric,
>>> also. So, in its attempt to discredit chemical sensitivity, the anti-MCS
>>> lobby cited the exact document that recognizes Chemical Sensitivity in
>>> "case-specific form".
>>>
>>> 2] Barrett gave himself away when he wrote "synthetic chemicals",
>> claiming
>>> that there is no evidence that anyone could be sensitized to the chemical
>>> industry's procudt line. Well, if I were a hired propagandist, I would
>>> have simply mentioned that not all chemical sensitivity triggers are
>>> limited to the chemical industry's product line. Rather, some chemical
>>> sensitvity triggers are found in unprocessed nature, as is the case in
>>> untreated pine, peruvian lily, willow bark, tulip, and primose. I would
>>> have said, "Some people are allergic to pine. But, that does not mean
>>> that you cut down all the pine trees in the forests." "Some people are
>>> allergic to freshly cut grass. But, that does not mean that you uproot
>>> all the grass in the world." "Some workers get sensitized to cotton dust
>>> and develop a respiratory illness known as byssinossis. But, that doesn't
>>> mean that you bury all the cotton in the world." You simply give these
>>> people their allergy-free climates. But, the propaganda machine didn't
>> do
>>> this. This shows intentional deceit. This indicates that:
>>>
>>> 1] either they knew that there was a harm factor in the perfume,
>>> pesticide, and chemical industry's product line.
>>>
>>> 2] or they are so greedy and selfish that they want their product line
>>> sold and applied everywhere unrestrictedly.
>>>
>>> 3] or both.
>>>
>>> You know what, there is something deadly wrong with a society that
>> insists
>>> on even having its toilet paper scented. This is gluttony. By the way,
>>> do you know why certain people are fixated on having scents everywhere
>>> they go? Ans: To stimulate their bored adrenal system. In fact, that
>> is
>>> the exact same reason why certain people frequented horror movies. All
>>> that these people have to do to is take up vigorous exercise:
>>> return sprints, full court basketball, tennis, trampoline, etc. Simply
>>> get a punching bag or some rope to skip. Sprint up hillsides. It has to
>>> be something that breaks a sweat and makes a person feel free. That will
>>> do it. Scent gluttony is the result of a sedentary society.
>>>
>>> On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
>>>> Pat, Patrick,and all:
>>>>
>>>> "Junk Science" is, of course, not my term, but thank you for your
>>>> feedback and additional thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> What comes to mind after reading your references to MCS, and
>>>> those "scientists" supported by industry that may conduct fraudulent
>>>> science efforts to suppress a medical consensus which would ultimately
>>>> place liability on chemical manufacturers, is the Chemical
>>>> Manufacturers _________ (If I have the name correct, an association?).
>>>>
>>>> In previous discussions on this board, reference was made to such an
>>>> industry organization's plan/recommendations on how to handle the
>>>> merging MCS issue. As I recall, it was pretty crude. I'm still
>>>> baffled that huge corporations with the resources to do things right,
>>>> don't mind screwing up so bad. The screw-ups contradict the portrayed
>>>> corporate image, but seem to go relatively un-noticed.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible that an 'association' comprised of specific corporate
>>>> entities is behind a fraudulent science effort (just avoiding the term
>>>> junk science)? If so, is there something wrong with such an effort?
>>>>
>>>> ff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/03/05, Pat wrote:
>>>>> ff: I should finish this train of thought with you. If want to see
>>>>> how an actual expert writes look up a Dr. William Meggs, Vice Chair
>>>>> for Clinical Affairs, Division of Toxicology, Department of Emergency
>>>>> Medicine, East Carolina University.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
>>>>>> Patrick:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about the firm and issue you raise, but it seems
>>>>>> related to a question I have wondered about. Hypothetically
>>>>>> speaking:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If, by some sufficient means, it was learned that a group of
>>>>>> professionals, doctors for example,profited by "creating"
>>>>>> scientific studies and or testimony which they knew were really
>>>>>> not scientifically valid, for a profit, and these invalid
>>>>>> resources became useful in denying medical claims and essentially
>>>>>> diseases, thereby causing the victim to continue to siffer and the
>>>>>> condition to worsen, are the creators of the junk science in some
>>>>>> way responsible for those affected?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, creating junk science for a profit with the intent or
>>>>>> knowledge that people could suffer if the junk science and/or
>>>>>> testimony were applied/used against those suffereing may be an
>>>>>> easier way to express this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could imagine someone
>>>>> approaching a scientist and asking them to
>>>>>> develop a study that could be used to support the desired outcome
>>>>>> that product X did not cause symtoms 1,2,3..., and, regardless of
>>>>>> whether or not X did cause the problem. I guess, starting out
>>>>>> with a desired conclusion, and them manipulating a research
>>>>>> project to supported the desired conclusion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/02/05, JD wrote:
>>>>>>> At last! What a relief. Cowgirl Mary is both "speachless"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> "speechless"... Double the pleasure!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
>>>>>>>> See? And Speechless too...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Wow...... I'm speachless....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/05, Patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Question: Which law firm can find the legal foundation upon
>>>>>>>>>> which to file a class action defamation suit against the
>>>>>>>>>> duly noted Barrett/Fumento/Milloy/Gots/Stossel and company
>>>>>>>>>> propaganda machine? Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
>>>>>>>>>> every Chemical Sensitivity sufferer in the States, including
>>>>>>>>>> those Chemical Sensitivity sufferers formally diagnosed with
>>>>>>>>>> the following titles:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1a] Occupational Asthma due to low-molecular weight agents.
>>>>>>>>>> 1b] Irritant-induced Asthma.
>>>>>>>>>> 2] Chemical Worker's Lung.
>>>>>>>>>> 3] External Allergic Alveolitis, aka Hypersensitivity
>>>>>>>>>> Pneumonitis "due to chemical sensitization."
>>>>>>>>>> 4] Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome.
>>>>>>>>>> 5] World Trade Center Cough.
>>>>>>>>>> 6] Sick Building Syndrome; a diagnostic title which is
>>>>>>>>>> even recognized in the Merck Manual.
>>>>>>>>>> 7] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
>>>>>>>>>> 8] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
>>>>>>>>>> 9a] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
>>>>>>>>>> 9b] Occupational Dermatitis.
>>>>>>>>>> 10] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
>>>>>>>>>> 11] And of course, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
>>>>>>>>>> is now recognized by name, by the following
>>>>>>>>>> licensed & accredited entities, in each one's
>>>>>>>>>> Occupatonal & Environmental Medicine Programs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I] Johns Hopkins.
>>>>>>>>>> II] Mt. Sinai Hospital.
>>>>>>>>>> III] Yale.
>>>>>>>>>> IV] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med. School.)
>>>>>>>>>> V] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also Harvard affiliate.)
>>>>>>>>>> VI] University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
>>>>>>>>>> VII] HealthPartners-Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
>>>>>>>>>> (affiliate of the NIOSH Educational Resource Ctr.)
>>>>>>>>>> VIII] Central New York Health Occupational Clinical Center.
>>>>>>>>>> IX] Marshall University.
>>>>>>>>>> X+] a number of board certified and licensed physicians.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus, there is the technologically advanced nation of
>>>>>>>>>> Germany which coded MCS as "an allergic condition."
>>>>>>>>>> And there are also a notable number of licensed entities
>>>>>>>>>> which recognize the titles:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Indoor Air Quality Assessment", "Building-related Illness",
>>>>>>>>>> "Sick Building Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
>>>>>>>>>> Diseases", "Chronic Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-induced
>>>>>>>>>> Illness", "Occupationally-induced Illness", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this includes the world renown Duke, as well as Iowa
>>>>>>>>>> Univ., Boston Medical Ctr., the Univ. of Maryland, and the
>>>>>>>>>> Univ. of Pittsburgh (home of the polio vaccine and first
>>>>>>>>>> liver transplant.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is the matter of including CFS sufferers
>>>>>>>>>> and GWS sufferers. Of course, GWS sufferers have apparently
>>>>>>>>>> suffered the most defamation of all the Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>> sufferers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, and only perhaps, a subset of patients who were
>>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with the following 'medically accepted' diagnostic
>>>>>>>>>> titles can be included:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aplastic Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The subset, of course, would consist in those who suffered
>>>>>>>>>> lingering sensitivity beyond the acute stage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such a lawsuit would not be against any licensed practicing
>>>>>>>>>> physician, it seems. After all, Barret was never board
>>>>>>>>>> certified at anything in his life, and he never praticed
>>>>>>>>>> "physical" medicine since his internship days, ending in
>>>>>>>>>> 1957. Gots hadn't had a patient in decades, so say the
>>>>>>>>>> reports. As well, neither Fumento nor Stossel nor Milloy
>>>>>>>>>> have ever been doctors in any medical discipline. And of
>>>>>>>>>> course, the only non-licensed (or non-Doctorate-bearing)
>>>>>>>>>> person qualified to give sound & valid evidence into the MCS
>>>>>>>>>> matter is one who has suffered from the physiological
>>>>>>>>>> medical condition for years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor would such a lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
>>>>>>>>>> industry, unless of course, discovery would should that the
>>>>>>>>>> pharmaceutical industry funded any of the defamatory
>>>>>>>>>> propagandists for producing the defamatory things which they
>>>>>>>>>> did. That would be a subsequent filing and joinder.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Barret/Fumento/Milloy/Stossel & company propaganda
>>>>>>>>>> machine employed slight-of-hand semantics & convenient
>>>>>>>>>> evidence omission in asserting to the inexperienced public
>>>>>>>>>> that Chemical Sensitivity is entirely a process of mental
>>>>>>>>>> illness, instead of a physiological process accompanied with
>>>>>>>>>> the following physiological medical findings:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1] Inflammation Scenarios, such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
>>>>>>>>>> & Interstitial Inflammation.
>>>>>>>>>> 2] Failing the Arterial Blood Gases Test.
>>>>>>>>>> 3] Dermatitis scenarios and similar.
>>>>>>>>>> 4] Enzyme QPon-1 Deficiency.
>>>>>>>>>> 5] Erythema, even internally.
>>>>>>>>>> 6] Over Production of Leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
>>>>>>>>>> 7] The Production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
>>>>>>>>>> excess of the Mercapturate which neutralizes it.
>>>>>>>>>> 8] Elevations of Alanine Aminotransferase,
>>>>>>>>>> aka Serum Glutamic Pyruvic Transaminase.
>>>>>>>>>> 9] Hyperactive Conjugations and Deficient Conjugations.
>>>>>>>>>> 10] Visible and Measurable Wheals during Skin Testing.
>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And then there is the matter P-300 Waves, IgA immunoglobins,
>>>>>>>>>> T-Cells, porphyira, and the observable and non-deniable
>>>>>>>>>> symptom of Profuse Dry Heaving, as well as that of
>>>>>>>>>> Blacking-Out. All in all, the smoking gun was the Fiber
>>>>>>>>>> Optic Rhinolaryngoscopic Exam and the medical findings
>>>>>> thereof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The defamatory propaganda resulted in the deprivation of
>>>>>>>>>> research funding. Furthermore, how many ignorant persons in
>>>>>>>>>> America believed the conclusions of Barret/Stossel/Fumento
>>>>>>>>>> and refused to accomodate a chemical sensitivity sufferer in
>>>>>>>>>> a time of crisis? How much suffering has that propaganda
>>>>>>>>>> machine caused? In as much, all Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>> sufferers have suffered triply:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1] at the hands of the illness,
>>>>>>>>>> 2] at the hands of a ruthless form of defamation,
>>>>>>>>>> 3] at the hands of abandonment for years, due to
>>>>>>>>>> little research funding and outrightly lazy physicians
>>>>>>>>>> who make lots of money upon one nitch repetitively,
>>>>>>>>>> steamlining their practices to a comfortable laziness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At this point in time, the plaintiff-class of Chemical
>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity Sufferers would have mainstream medicine on it's
>>>>>>>>>> side. After all, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
>>>>>>>>>> Association all recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
>>>>>>>>>> to the ASTHMA symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA recognize it as
>>>>>>>>>> it applies to Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate Senstivity,
>>>>>>>>>> Ramin Wood Allergy, Acetaminophen Intolerance, Red Cedar
>>>>>>>>>> Allergy, Peruvian Lily Allergy, Isocyanate Sensitivity,
>>>>>>>>>> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivty, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the AMA, AAAAI, & ALA all advocate the practice of
>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as a necessary part of treatment for the
>>>>>>>>>> chemically sensitive, as it applies to asthmatics. Their
>>>>>>>>>> official literature enumerates the same chemical-bearing
>>>>>>>>>> agents that MCS patients has been avoiding for years, out of
>>>>>>>>>> instinct. And remember, Barrett condemned the practice of
>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as detrimental, while Fumento called the practice
>>>>>>>>>> "nonsense." Thus is the proof that Barrett is the real
>>>>>>>>>> quack, speaking contrary to the AMA & AAAAI. (Fumento is
>>>>>>>>>> simply a pushy-shovey brat who needs to be put his place, as
>>>>>>>>>> all bully-brats picking on helpless people need to be.)
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, comdemning the practice of AVOIDANCE, while
>>>>>>>>>> asserting that Chemical Sensitivity patients must be placed
>>>>>>>>>> in direct encounter with the triggers that torment them, is
>>>>>>>>>> the act of inciting a crime known in some jurisdictions as
>>>>>>>>>> TOXIC BATTERY. Thus, Fumento and Barret have publicly
>>>>>>>>>> advocated the committing of crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proof that the AMA, AAAI, & ALA recognize Chemical
>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity, at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom,
>>>>>>>>>> can be found at the following mainstream medical sites:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AMA Report 4 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-98),
>>>>>>>>>> found at http://ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html
>>>>>>>>>> The other ones are found at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://aaaai.org/patients/publications/publicedmat/tips/
>>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=
>>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch044a/html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The propaganda mahcine fraudulently went about, claiming
>>>>>>>>>> that the AMA & AAAAI condemned MCS as non-existent. This is
>>>>>>>>>> a lie. The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to recognize the
>>>>>>>>>> specific title, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
>>>>>>>>>> case-specific diagnostic title of its own medical code.
>>>>>>>>>> This is because MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a
>>>>>>>>>> name. The AMA & AAAAI merely said that more research was
>>>>>>>>>> needed to be done, in order them to encapsulate MCS into a
>>>>>>>>>> meticulously defined and analysed "case definition". And
>>>>>>>>>> though they did not recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>> by name, they still recognized the phenomenon of Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>> of Chemicals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mainstreams Medical Science has long since recognized the
>>>>>>>>>> process of "sensitization." And it has long since
>>>>>>>>>> recognized the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
>>>>>>>>>> chemical-bearing agents when encountered by susceptible
>>>>>>>>>> persons, at commonly encounter levels (at low to moderate
>>>>>>>>>> levels).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The MCS debate has been game of semantics. The anti-MCS
>>>>>>>>>> lobby went beyond the sound barriers of obsecenity. All
>>>>>>>>>> contributing members must be held accountable.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Milloy , 2/28/05, by Patrick .
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/01/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/01/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/02/05, by JD.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by CC.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by SF.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Patrick again.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by The other Patrick.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by Mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat: P.S..
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/06/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/06/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 5/06/05, by PostScription.
- Re: Johns Hopkins, Yale, Mt. Sinai, etc, 5/06/05, by Postscript.
- Re: Northeast Specialty Hospital's COEM, 5/08/05, by Added PostScript.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 10/13/05, by RITA VEMA.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.