Deposition of Tedd Koren, D.C.
Koren Publications is probably the world's largest supplier of patient education materials to chiropractors. Its president, Tedd Koren, D.C., also publishes an electronic newsletter and maintains a Web site. In 2002, Dr. Stephen Barrett sued Koren and his company for falsely reporting that Dr. Barrett had been "delicensed," is a "quackpot," and was "in trouble" because he had been justifiably sued for racketeering. Koren's report was based on a "news release" by Tim Bolen, a professional character assassin whom Barrett is also suing for libel. Koren's answers during the deposition indicated that he neither knew nor cared whether what he said was true. In August 2004, an arbitration panel composed of three attorneys awarded Barrett $6,500 in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. However, Koren appealed, and a Lehigh County Judge dismissed the suit on grounds that Barrett had not proved that Koren has acted in "reckless disregard of the truth." Barrett appealed, but the appeals were denied.
(Note: in the deposition transcript below, spelling errors have been corrected and a few passages where people interrupted each other were lightly edited to make them easier to read.) For the full story of the lawsuit, click here.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION, NO.2002-C-1837
STEPHEN BARRETT,M.D., Plaintiff, vs.
TEDD KOREN, D.C., and KOREN PUBLICATIONS, INC., Defendants
October 2, 2003, commencing at 1:10 p.m.
For the Plaintiff
ORLOSKI, HINGA, PANDALEON & ORLOSKI
BY: RICHARD J. ORLOSKI, ESQ.
111 North Cedar Crest Boulevard
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104
For the Defendants
SWANKIN & TURNER
BY: JAMES S. TURNER, ESQ.
1400 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
MR. ORLOSKI: There is a gentleman by the name of Steve Eisen in the room who has set up a computer screen which looks like, to my mind, an alternate court reporting system. I do not know.
MR. EISEN: No. This is a PC, laptop.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. I assume, okay, Mr. Banta is not here.
MR. TURNER: He's not here.
MR. ORLOSKI: He is not going to come?
MR. TURNER: He can't make it. He's not coming.
MR. ORLOSKI: Mr. Eisen is not a lawyer, and he is not a paralegal?
MR. TURNER: Correct. But he's working for, he's—I'm responsible for him. He's an investigator for me. I've asked him to help me out, understand issues and work on things and gather stuff and listen to what comes up in this case here and see what needs to be explored or developed or thought about.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. So as long as you are assuming responsibilities for him, I have no problem with him sitting here.
MR. TURNER: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MR. ORLOSKI: We had an off-the-record discussion about the . . . we have the set of interrogatories out and a request for production is out.
MR. TURNER: Are you willing to give me another copy of the request?
MR. ORLOSKI: I was going to mark them as an exhibit so it was real easy to do for you.
MR. TURNER: Good, good.
MR. ORLOSKI: But I think, I think, it was either you and I, I think it was you and I, it may have been me and Charles, but I said if you're not going to have the documents here today for our examination, we are going to reserve the right to recall.
MR. TURNER: You told me that.
MR. ORLOSKI: So that's amenable to you?
MR. TURNER: It's amenable.
MR. ORLOSKI: And that agreement basically is, since I didn't articulate it right now, it was articulated in the phone conversation, that to the extent that you are not producing documents today, to the extent you're going to be late, after we receive the documents, we, at our discretion, will have the right to reschedule Dr. Koren in order to determine whether or not other questions should be asked in light of the documents.
MR. TURNER: Right. Absolutely.
MR. ORLOSKI: That's acceptable?
MR. TURNER: Fine. Not a problem.
THE WITNESS: Is there any problem with my taping this?
MR. ORLOSKI: I rely on the court reporter.
MR. TURNER: Well, the court reporter is, that will be the determining, that will be the official document, not this. But it will just help us, you know, go back and check answers right away and anything that we have, any issues that come up.
MR. ORLOSKI: I assume you are buying a copy of the transcript?
MR. TURNER: I'm not sure. We have to see.
MR. ORLOSKI: You're not sure?
MR. TURNER: We have to see what happens, whether there is anything in the process we are really interested in.
MR. ORLOSKI: Then if you're not going to buy the transcript, there is not going to be—you're not committing yourself to buying the transcript, then I have a problem with your taping it.
MR. TURNER: Why is that?
MR. ORLOSKI: I don't think you can create an alternate record. And that's my concern. I'm not going to agree to tape it. I don't know if you know Pennsylvania law, so I mean, but I just, I don't want to be in a position where we have an official transcript saying one thing, and a record created on your side of the equation saying the other thing.
MR. TURNER: Well, I mean, the official record would be the determining factor.
MR. ORLOSKI: Well, if you're not buying a transcript, I'm not agreeing to being taped. If you're -
MR. TURNER: Well, we won't tape it.
MR. ORLOSKI: Was the tape already on?
THE WITNESS: It was on.
MR. ORLOSKI: Well, then, it was illegal, by the way.
THE WITNESS: I'll delete it.
MR. ORLOSKI: We'll waive that for now.
THE WITNESS: I'll delete it, if necessary. I don't want to cause any angst for either of us.
MR. ORLOSKI: Just for the record, Pennsylvania law has - I don't know if you know this—
MR. TURNER: I do.
MR. ORLOSKI:—the strongest anti wiretapping statute in the entire United States. You can never ever, ever tape anybody without them knowing it.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. ORLOSKI: To the extent that you do—
THE WITNESS: All right. We'll consider it untaped.
MR. ORLOSKI: Good. That's why you're asking permission, because you understood that.
TEDD KOREN, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
MR. ORLOSKI: Is he going to waive the reading and signing?
MR. TURNER: No.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. Well, that creates another problem. If they're not going to waive reading and signing, and they're not buying a transcript -
MR. TURNER: We didn't say we are not going to.
MR. ORLOSKI:—then you have to come to the office.
MR. TURNER: Well, we have to see whether there is anything that we are concerned about at the end. We might just say fine. At the end we may waive. At the beginning we are not waiving.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. Just so everybody is on the same page, if you commit yourself to buying transcript, I think then the reporter will send you one and then you respond. If you're going, committing yourself to not buying a copy of the transcript, then to protect her work product, then Dr. Koren will have to come here to do it.
MR. TURNER: That's fine.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ORLOSKI:
A. Yeah. Any coffee here?
Q. Doctor, my name is Rick Orloski. I represent Dr. Stephen Barrett, who has filed a lawsuit against you in Lehigh County. Here is how the system works. I ask you questions, you are supposed to answer my question as asked and answer truthfully and honestly. In fairness to you, in order to do that, it's important that you understand my questions. If you don't understand my questions, it's important that you do not answer until you are comfortable that you understand it. You are here with very distinguished counsel representing you here. Feel free at any time to confer with him to make sure you understand the question. Feel free to tell me that you don't understand the question, and I will make sure that I clarify the question so you'll understand it before you answer it. Are you with me so far?
A. As you go.
Q. I guess that's a yes.
A. Yes, it Is.
Q. I wasn't sure. Okay. I can tell you're going to be a nonverbal person. Nonverbal people respond with hands, with the head. It's okay to do that if that's your custom, but the young lady at the head of the table is taking down words. And that's her job, to take down words, not guess what a nonverbal gesture mayor may not mean. So if you do respond nonverbally, it's important that you also verbalize your answers. Say yes when you mean yes, no when you mean no, maybe when you mean maybe, and she will get your verbal responses correct and not have to guess at your nonverbal responses. Are you still with me?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Doctor, please state your name for the record.
A. Tedd Koren, Tedd with two Ds.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. I'm a chiropractor.
Q. What is your home address?
A. It's P.O. Box 665, Gwynedd Valley, Pennsylvania.
Q. And what is your street address?
A. 2026 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Q. Do you practice chiropractic medicine today?
A. In Pennsylvania, it's not referred to as chiropractic medicine.
Q. Okay. I'm sorry. What's the correct terminology?
Q. Do you practice chiropractic today?
Q. At one or more offices?
A. At one office.
Q. What's that office?
A. That's the P.O. Box. That's actually where I get my mall, correspondence, Gwynedd Valley address.
Q. But what's the street address of your chiropractic office?
MR. TURNER: Go ahead.
A. 301 Wood Spring Road, same town, Gwynedd Valley.
Q. What county is that in?
Q. I'll ask you some brief questions about your educational background. Where did you go to high school?
A. Tilden High School, New York.
Q. Is that New York, New York?
Q. Brooklyn. And did you get a diploma?
A. High school diploma?
Q. What year?
Q. Any education after that?
A. I went to the Brooklyn College, the City University of New York system. I had a regent's scholarship. Then I went to the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where I graduated from.
Q. How long were you at Brooklyn College?
A. About six months.
Q. And what was your program of study there?
A. It was Bachelor of Science, premed.
Q. When were you there?
A. 1968 to '69. I'm sorry. '68 to '69.
Q. So the fall term of -
A. Immediately after high school I started Brooklyn College.
Q. Did you immediately transfer to University of Miami?
A. Yes. Q.What years were you at the University of Miami?
A. '69 to '72.
Q. And did you graduate from the University of Miami?
Q. What degree?
A. BA in mass communications.
Q. Mass communications?
Q. So you switched out of the premed program?
Q. Did you graduate with honors from Miami?
Q. Any more education after that?
A. Sherman College of Chiropractic.
Q. And what year?
A. Did I enter, or leave?
Q. Well, enter and leave.
A. 1974 to 19771 matriculated there, I graduated.
Q. Is that the only chiropractic school you went to?
Q. Is it a three-year program?
A. It was four academic years, but you can compress it into three actual years.
Q. What did you do between '72 and '74?
A. I traveled and worked.
Q. Did you ever apply to a medical school, meaning an M.D. school program?
Q. Did you ever apply to an osteopathic medical school, meaning a D.O. program?
Q. How did you do in chiropractic school?
A. I was class valedictorian and graduated with high honors.
Q. So you were first in your class?
Q. And any formal education after that?
A. Postgraduate courses, continuing education.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Postgraduate courses and continuing education seminars that
I've taken, you know, as part
of my professional education.
A. No college metriculation.
Q. Okay. So your postgraduate education did not include any formal degree program?
Q. Are there formal degree programs for chiropractic at the postgraduate level?
A. I believe there is various diplomate programs. In fact, one of the diplomate programs that was Just approved by the, some university system or some national accreditation system. I Just got the e-mail yesterday. So I don't have the exact specifics on it.
Q. But you have never participated in that type of postgraduate program?
A. No. I did take stressology, spinal column stressology, for instance, but it was not a recognized diplomate program.
Q. Have you taken postgraduate seminars only because you have to do whatever continuing chiropractic education you have to do?
A. Right. Right. And research courses, things of that nature.
Q. After - did you graduate in June of '77?
A. March of '77.
Q. Did you sit for any licensing boards?
A. West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Q. And how did you do on your first round in West Virginia?
A. I passed.
Q. And how did you do in your first round in Pennsylvania?
A. I passed.
Q. Are you still licensed in both states?
A. Let my West Virginia license lapse.
Q. When you say you let your license lapse in West Virginia, what do you mean?
A. I didn't continue paying the fees, I didn't take the postgraduate education that they required.
Q. Well, were you delicensed by West Virginia?
A. No. No. Probably still there; I Just stopped paying the fees.
Q. Okay. So that was a voluntary decision on your part, West Virginia didn't delicense you and involuntarily take your license away from you?
Q. You just let it lapse?
Q. How long did you have the West Virginia license?
A. I don't really know. I just Ignored it after I sat for the boards. I got the license, and then I put it in a drawer, and I said, why am I even thinking about practicing in West Virginia, and I just forgot about it.
Q. Okay. When did you get your license in Pennsylvania?
A. It was valid upon graduation, March of 1977.
Q. Okay. You're going to have to explain that to me.
A. Pennsylvania had a ruling at the time where you could sit for the board in your final year or final quarter at school, you could still go and sit for the board and get a license that wasn't active until you actually got your degree.
Q. Okay. So you sat for the board before you graduated, you passed on your first try, and then once you got the degree, your license was activated?
A. I believe so.
Q. Is that how you recall it?
A. Yes. I hope so.
Q. Okay. After you graduated in March of '74—
Q. '77, what jobs did you, what employment did you engage in?
A. I set up a chiropractic office.
Q. Where did you set up your first office?
A. Glenside, Pennsylvania.
Q. And when did you set that office up?
A. 1977, probably, oh, I imagine April or May. It was shortly after relocating to Pennsylvania.
Q. Were you by yourself, or with somebody?
Q. How long did that arrangement continue that you were at a chiropractic office in Glenside, Pennsylvania by yourself?
A. Three or four years.
Q. What was your next professional arrangement?
A. I opened an office in Philadelphia.
Q. Where in Philadelphia?
A. On 1920 Chestnut Street.
Q. And with whom were you practicing chiropractic?
A. It was a solo practitioner office.
Q. And how long did that arrangement continue that you were practicing chiropractic at 920 Chestnut?
A. 1920 Chestnut.
Q. I'm sorry. I thought that's what I said. Maybe I misspoke.
A. That's okay. I was there I believe five years. Then I found another office nearby when that lease was up, you know, I moved to the next office.
Q. Where was the next office?
A. 1427 Vine Street, Philadelphia.
Q. And again by yourself?
Q. And how long did that arrangement continue?
A. I was there about, approximately three years. And then I relocated to 2026 Chestnut Street.
Q. I'm sorry, is it 2226, or 2026?
Q. And was that by yourself?
Q. And how long did that continue?
A. That, my private practice In that location continued till about 1992.
Q. What happened in 1992?
A. I relocated my office to Gwynedd Valley, the present location.
Q. So did you live at your office?
A. Which one?
Q.2026 Chestnut Street. Was it a combination of home/office?
A. Yeah. For a iittle while I actually lived there.
Q. Okay. Then in '92 you moved into Gwynedd Valley?
Q. What address in Gwynedd Valley?
A. The 301 Wood Spring Road.
Q. But did you close down the 2026 Chestnut Street address?
A. As - I was no longer practicing there. I owned the building.
Q. Did you live there?
A. For a little while, yes.
Q. I thought you told me you lived there today.
A. No. That's my, that's where I get my mall. That's my business address.
Q. Oh. Well, I thought... Where do you live, what's your house address?
A. The 301 Wood Spring Road.
Q. Okay. So 301 Wood Spring Road is both an office and a home?
Q. And you've been there since 1992?
Q. And you still see patients there?
Q. And you're still by yourself?
A. Excuse me. Yes.
Q. You're still by yourself?
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the entity known as Koren Publications, Inc.?
Q. What do you know about Koren Publications, Inc.?
A. That was a company that I write for.
Q. Was a company?
A. Is a company that I write for.
Q. Do you know what their business address is?
A. Corporate office, well, actually, they operate out of 2026 Chestnut Street.
Q. Do you know when Koren Publications, Inc. began existing?
A. About 1987.
Q. Did you—
A. It might have been '88; in that period.
Q. Did you play any role in the establishment of Koren Publications, Inc.?
Q. Were you an incorporator?
Q. Were you on the original board of directors?
A. I don't know if we had a board of directors.
Q. Are you a corporation?
A. Yeah. Then I guess we have a board of directors.
Q. Well, what state did you incorporate in?
Q. Well, I feel reasonably confident that if you incorporated in Pennsylvania, you have a board of directors. Do you know who the board—
A. My attorneys handled all that material. They have all the corporate minutes and the corporate information.
Q. Who are your corporate attorneys?
A. Well, I'm not using the individual now. I have actually a few different ones. I can find out for you, If you like, because we changed attorneys that have done that work recently.
Q. Okay. Who are you using today?
A. I'm not sure which one has the actual corporate papers.
Q. Which ones do you think have the corporate papers, who are the possibilities?
A. I'd have to go through my notes.
Q. You don't even know -
A. I have a few different attorneys, but—
MR. TURNER: Who incorporated it?
THE WITNESS: Oh. I did.
MR. TURNER: Who was the attorney?
THE WITNESS: The original attorney was—give me a moment. It's, the name slips me. That slips my mind. I don't remember. It will come to me probably a little later in our deposition.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
A. Warren Kauffman, there we go, with two Fs, I believe.
A. He was with Abrahams & Lowenstein, but that law firm no longer exists.
Q. Okay. So you mayor may not have been on the original board of directors?
A. I'm sure I was. I mean, I was the one that founded the company.
Q. So you do more than just write for Koren Publications, Inc., correct?
A. Right, yes.
Q. So you think you're on the board. Are you a corporate officer?
Q. What office do you hold?
Q. Just president?
A. I'll have to check the notes. I haven't really looked at them for quite a while.
Q. How about shareholder?
A. I'm a shareholder, yes.
Q. Who else is a shareholder?
A. Probably my wife.
Q. What is your wife's name?
Q. Other than you and your wife, are there other shareholders?
A. I don't think so.
Q, Corporate officers, who are the other corporate officers?
A. I think there is just Beth and I, but I'd have to check the records. I'm not sure. I don't handle that side of the business.
Q. Who handles that side of the business?
A. My wife and the attorneys.
Q. What is, what, when you say you don't handle that side of the business, what side of the business do you say Beth Koren handles?
A. She does a lot of the business and legal aspects.
Q. Okay. You indicated that you are a writer for that?
A. For Koren Publications, yes.
Q. What does Koren Publications publish?
A. Patient education for chiropractors.
Q. Okay. Are the publications for other chiropractors, or are the publications for the patients?
A. The publications are generally for the patients, for chiropractors to purchase and distribute to their patients.
Q. Can you tell me, do you have, like, a mailing list of chiropractors that you send to?
A. Oh, yeah. I'm sure we do. Actually, we probably use professional mailing list companies.
Q. Are you saying that you only publish handouts for chiropractors to hand to their patients on chiropractic health, is that...?
A. That's most of it We also have some booklets, some reference material for chiropractors to use. It's more expensive, so I wouldn't expect them to give them out to their patients. And we have made tapes, audiotapes of health-related subjects.
Q. Who writes the booklets?
A. I do.
Q. Who writes the pamphlets?
A. I do.
Q. Anybody else write them?
Q. So you are the only writer who writes for Koren Publications?
A. We have published some material from, that other people have written, you know, and I've edited collections of other people's writings that we have published.
Q. So who does that editing?
A. I do.
Q. How many—does Koren Publications have any employees?
Q. How many employees do they have?
A. Four full-time.
Q. And what are the names and their job responsibilities?
A. That, you'd have to probably ask my wife.
Q. So you don't know who the people who work for Koren Publications are?
A. I don't deal on a day-to-day running of the company.
Q. You don't even know their names?
A. I know the names of some of them.
Q. What names do you know?
A. I know Journey.
Q. Is that a first name, or a last name?
A. That's a first name.
Q. Do you know Journey's last name?
Q. What function does Journey
A. You'll have to ask my wife. She has changed everyone's work things. She is the person who knows how to do all that stuff.
Q. Who else do you know?
A. And there is Mary McCann, M-C-C-A-N-N. And she also works with Journey, but specifics, I don't deal with.
Q. Anybody else that you know works there?
A. Yes. Don.
Q. Female, or D-O-N?
A. Don, D-O-N. And it's Varrichone (phonetic), I think. And then Sylvia.
Q. What is Sylvia's name?
A. Martin, I believe.
Q. Any relationship to Journey Martin?
Q. And you don't know what any of those four people do for the company?
A. It's really not my department.
Q. Do you publish these pamphlets in-house, or do you contract them out?
A. We have printers, that we contract them to be printed by printers.
Q. So you don't have your own printing presses?
Q. In addition to writing for Koren Publications and seeing patients, do you do anything other in a professional manner to generate income for yourself?
A. Yes. I lecture.
Q. And where do you lecture?
A. Around the country.
Q. How often do you lecture?
A. I couldn't give you specifics, but I lecture, you know, a few times a year, maybe 20 or 31 times.
Q. How long have you been lecturing?
A. I think about seven or eight years.
Q. Now, when you go on these lectures, do you take samples of your written works for distribution among the audience?
A. Yes. Sometimes.
Q. So if I correctly understand, you, professionally you make money by seeing patients, by writing for Koren Publications and by lecturing, correct?
Q. Do you make money any other way?
A. Yes. I have a subscription newsletter.
Q. And who publishes the subscription newsletter?
A.It's an electronic newsletter. I write it.
Q. Okay. When you say electronic newsletter, you mean something that's done over the Internet?
Q. And that's a subscription?
Q. What does it cost for a subscription?
A. $25 a month.
Q. $25 per month?
Q. Is it solely for chiropractic audience?
Q. So chiropractors -
A. It's a patient newsletter for chiropractors to resend to their patients. So it's for a chiropractic audience. It's chiropractors, like the brochures for them to purchase and then distribute to their patients.
Q. So it's another mechanism for getting material into the chiropractor's hands, who can then distribute it to their patients?
Q. How many—when did you start this, the subscription newsletter business?
A. About two years ago.
Q. And how many subscribers do you have today?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You have no idea?
A. I have no idea. I just do the writing.
Q. Who knows how many subscriptions you have today?
A. We have, you know, people that send it out, they would know it.
Q. Well, who do we have to talk to to find out?
A. I'll have to find out and get names. I just give them the newsletter and they distribute It.
Q. How do you prepare your newsletter? Do you type it into a computer?
Q. You type it into a format that's immediately usable?
A. It has to be compressed and then sent out, because sometimes I put pictures in, and that takes up a lot of memory, so there is a compression process that has to be done.
Q. Have you ever written about Dr. Barrett in that electronic newsletter?
A. That one, no.
Q. Do you have another electronic newsletter?
A. I have a free one, yeah.
Q. So you have a paid subscription service?
A. And a free newsletter.
Q. What's the name of the paid one?
A. The "Tedd Koren's Patient Newsletter," two Ds.
Q. So you also have a free newsletter?
Q. How long have you had a free newsletter?
A. Probably about five years.
Q. Who writes for the free newsletter?
A. I do.
Q. Only you?
Q. Is that equally true with the subscription newsletter, only you?
Q. So anything that's written is your work product?
A. Except for letters to me.
Q. Except -
A. Letters to the editor.
Q. You may publish those?
A. Correct. Or people will send me articles that I will include in it. So in terms of that way of looking at it, you can say I edit the newsletter as well as write most of the articles for it.
Q. Do you know how many people get your free electronic newsletter?
Q. Have you ever mentioned Dr. Stephen Barrett's name in your free newsletter?
Q. How many times?
A. I don't have an exact count.
Q. Give me an estimate or range.
A. I really can't.
Q. More than a hundred times?
Q. More than once?
A. I Imagine more than once.
Q. More than 50?
Q. More than 25?
A. Probably not.
Q. More than ten?
A. Probably not.
Q. More than five?
A. Maybe, maybe not
Q. So it's in the vicinity of five times?
A. Possibly. I guess. I mean, I imagine we could find out somehow.
Q. I will tell you, sitting next to me to my right is Dr. Stephen Barrett. Do you know Dr. Stephen Barrett?
A. Not personally.
Q. Did you ever see him before today?
Q. So this is the very first time you've ever seen what he looks like?
A. In the flesh, yes.
Q. Okay. In addition to the handouts that you prepare for chiropractors, do you sell or cause to be sold chiropractic teaching devices, for example, a skeleton, an exemplar of a skeleton?
A. We have in the past. We don't do that now. We have a catalog that would sell, you know, anatomical spines and spinal-related products.
Q. When did you do that?
A. I don't have the exact dates. It was a few years ago. That's not something I create. That's something that a company creates and we resell them.
MR. ORLOSKI: Let's mark this Koren 1. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 1 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Koren Exhibit Number 1, and ask you please to look at that. Do you recognize that document?
Q. Okay. What is that?
A. This is our catalog from 1999.
Q. How often do you publish a catalog?
A. It varies. . . I'm not doing the marketing now, so the scheduling is not in my hands.
Q. Well, who prepares—do you write the catalog?
A. No. No. We usually have other people do that.
Q. So this catalog that's in your hand, that is a catalog of the types of products that you sell to chiropractors, correct?
Q. And that's what you were doing in 1999?
Q. I think there is some exemplars, there is things other than pamphlets?
A. Yes. There is books, and there is posters, and we sold a T-shirt then, and a bumper sticker, and some cOloring books, and a Slinky, and a "SUB-LUX-A-TION Game: Your Spine is Out of Line," and some stickers, and Lucite holders to hold brochures and stickers, and some other people's products, too.
Q. Are you still doing that type of thing, or has your catalog changed?
A. It's still similar.
Q. Similar. So you're still selling products, not just handouts?
Q. Okay. Do you know how many catalogs you distribute?
Q. Can you give me an estimate?
A. I really can't
Q. You don't know if it's a million or five million?
Q. Or you know it's not a million?
A. I have no idea.
Q. So it could be a million?
A. I can't answer that question. I'm just not involved in that part of the business.
Q. Who's involved in that part of the business?
A. That would be Beth.
Q. Beth Koren, your wife?
Q. What is her educational background? Is she a chiropractor?
A. She's not a chiropractor.
Q. What is her -
A. She is a psychologist.
Q. Does she practice?
A. She's not practicing now.
Q. Does she have any other outside employment other than Koren Publications?
Q. You did not list her as one of the four people who work for the company. Is that an oversight?
A. She's not an employee. She's one of the principals.
Q. She doesn't get paid?
A. She gets a small stipend, small salary.
Q. So she does get paid a salary -
Q.—as an employee?
A. As an executive. I don't know if it's the same thing. I try not to think of my wife as my employee. It causes problems at home.
Q. Okay. Looking at your income on an annual basis, looking at the whole pot, do you know, can you give me a percentage of the breakdown betwel the publications, the subscriptions, paid subscription service, and your function as a chiropractor seeing patients?
Q. You have no idea?
A. I have not the least idea.
Q. Looking at the time you spend, can you tell us, do you spend most of your time on the free newsletters, paid newsletter, seeing patients, or writing for Koren Publications, Inc.?
A. There is really a sort of a blur between a lot of that, because sometimes I'll write an article - I do mostly writing - and sometimes I'll write an article that will be for Koren Publications, I might use it for the newsletter, for either newsletter, or it might be part of a lecture. So it's hard to really say.
Q. Do I correctly understand from what you just said, that patients is the small part of your practice or the way you
A. I don't have a large practice. I'm really part-time in practice.
Q. Part-time in seeing patients?
Q. But you devote your life full-time to the practice of chiropractic? I mean, you are a professional chiropractor?
A. Yes. I am a doctor of chiropractic.
Q. Your business ventures revolve around your expertise as a chiropractor?
Q. Do you know what the gross income of Koren Publications is?
Q. You have no idea?
A. No. I don't involve myself in the business aspect at all.
Q. Do you sign a tax return for the Koren Publications?
Q. Do you look to see what the gross of Koren Publications is?
Q. The subscription newsletter service, is that part of Koren Publications, Inc.?
Q. What, who is that?
A. That's Tedd Koren's Patient Newsletter.
Q. Is that a sole proprietorship?
A. I believe so.
Q. So that files a separate tax return?
A. I don't know. I don't want to seem cagey. I honestly don't deal with the business end at all. I'm too busy writing and lecturing.
Q. The free newsletter, who sends that out?
A. I write it, and then we send it to tech guys who send it out.
Q. Is that part of Koren Publications, Inc.?
A. I don't think I've ever put it part of anything. I, you know, that's a really good question. I'm not sure.
Q. When you write - have you written pamphlets about chiropractors taking care of earaches?
A. I have discussed chiropractic in relationship to children with earaches.
Q. So you have written about chiropractic care and children with earaches?
Q. Have you ever written about chiropractic care as treatment for children with learning disorders?
Q. Have you written about chiropractic care as treatment for cancer?
Q. Have you written about chiropractic care as treatment for bronchitis?
Q. Have you written about chiropractic care for treatment of liver and gallbladder disorders?
Q. Do chiropractors treat children with earaches?
A. They will give chiropractic care to children with earaches.
Q. For treatment for earaches?
Q. Would you agree that chiropractors do not or should not be using chiropractic medicine to treat learning disorders?
A. Well, we don't call it chiropractic medicine. And we don't treat learning disorders. But we will take care of children who have learning disorders.
Q. So, but not taking care of their learning disorders, they just happen to have a learning disorder?
A. If they have a spine, we'll analyze their spine and correct for subluxatlons.
Q. But not for creating, not for treating the learning disorders?
Q. And is the same true for cancer, you treat patients who have cancer, but you don't treat, use chiropractic treatments to ameliorate or treat the cancer, correct?
A. I look at it as, chiropractic is like good nutrition, something you always need whether or not you have a disease.
Q. Explain what you just said to me.
A. Well, whether you have any disease or condition, you need to have a healthy spine. It's a prerequisite for a proper functioning body. So If you have a health problem, your spine should still be healthy, you should make sure your spine is properly balanced, without subluxations, and if you have a disease, you should make sure your spine is without subluxations, to make sure it's functioning properly.
Q. Well, do I correctly understand from what you said that everyone needs chiropractic care?
A. Everyone, to have a healthy spine.
Q. I asked chiropractic care. Does everyone need chiropractic care?
A. Well, chiropractors analyze the spine. So you might ask the question, does everybody need dental care. And you can say, no, they don't, they could live without dental care. But should everybody get their teeth checked by a dentist to make sure their teeth are healthy? And I think the logical answer would be yes. In the same way you can live without chiropractic care. But should everybody make sure their spines are healthy? And my answer would be yes. And chiropractors specialize in analyzing the spinal column.
Q. So are you saying people without spinal symptoms should get treated by chiropractors?
A. What do you mean by spinal symptoms?
Q. Somebody who is asymptomatic, should they still, and not having pain associated with the spine?
A. What symptoms are you referring to?
Q. Let's talk pain.
A. People without pain?
A. Oh, yeah. Just like a person without pain should have their teeth checked by a dentist. Pain is often the last stage of the disease process.
Q. So even though someone has no pain, they're asymptomatic, you recommend chiropractic care?
A. Chiropractic doesn't mean that you are actually doing any correction to a patient. A large portion of it is just checking the spine to see if It's got any abnormalities.
Q. Is a spinal adjustment something that should be done only to treat specific symptoms?
A. Spinal adjustment should be done to correct subluxatlons.
Q. Okay. Can you have subluxations without symptoms?
A. You can have subluxatIons without overt symptoms, but you will, if there is a subluxation present, there will be, by definition, some neurological, neuromuscular or other symptoms or disturbances in the body.
Q. How often should the average person have a spinal adjustment?
A. That's a really tough question, because I don't, I've never found an average person. It depends on lifestyle, age, background, body type, weight, probably genetic predispositions, the kind of work they're doing and stresses they're under, you know, physical, chemical, emotional, nutritional stresses. There is all kinds of factors that come into play in everyone's life. Birth trauma could be an inciting factor in some people. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 2 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Do you recognize the document in front of you which we marked as Koren Exhibit Number 2?
A. Not really, but I could have written It. You know, I get hundreds of e-mails every week.
Q. Well, this is not an e-mail to you, correct?
A. From me.
Q. This is an e-mail from you?
A. I could have written it.
Q. Okay. This has an e-mail address of TKOREN1@aol.com with a date of September 10th, 2001. Was that your e-mail address on September 10, 2001?
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And do you know who firstname.lastname@example.org is? Do you know whose
Q. So if I told you that that was Stephen Barrett, you would not know who that -
A. I would assume it could be. I imagine it was, in the context of what's written here.
Q. Well, most of what's written there seems to be a promo for a book written by Tedd Koren, D.C. That's you, correct?
Q. And apparently you wrote a book called "Childhood Vaccinations - Questions All Parents Should Ask." Correct?
Q. It promotes how you can buy the book?
Q. And then somebody says, "I've treated vaccinated and unvaccinated children and the unvaccinated children are far healthier than the vaccinated ones."
A. That's Philip Incao, M.D. in Denver, Colorado.
Q. So that's not you saying that?
A. No. It's Dr. Incao.
Q. Did you set up your—
A. I quote him. As you can see, I have his name after the quote.
Q. Okay. Do you set up your e-mail account so any time your signature goes out, it promotes this book?
A. For a while I was doing that. I stopped doing it.
Q. Were you doing it in September of 2001?
Q. And do I correctly understand that the book is against childhood vaccinations?
A. I 'd like to think of it as a balanced way of looking at the subject.
Q. Well, are you pro, anti, or neutral on childhood vaccinations?
A. I think the best answer is, I'm against sloppy science, I'm against junk science, and I'm against unproven or quack remedies. So if I find Information that shows me something like that is going on, I'm against whatever is poor science.
Q. Do you have any scientific background, education?
A. What do you mean by scientific?
Q. Well, I gather you dropped out of the premed program, and your college education, you told me, was mass communications.
A. That was my undergrad, yes.
Q. And you don't have any Ph.D. in any scientific endeavor, correct?
A. I have a D.C. in chiropractic.
Q. That's the extent of your educational background, correct?
Q. Do you consider yourself a scientist?
Q. You are?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. On what basis do you consider yourself a scientist?
A. I could read critically the literature, I've been published In biomedical Journals doing research.
Q. So do you also do research in addition to the things you've told us?
A. I have done -
Q. What type of research do you do?
A. I've done work on the correlation of posture and personality. It was published in the "International Journal of Psychosomatics."
A. Yes. It was published in the peer reviewed medical indexed journal. I've been published in the "Frontier Sciences," Temple University, on chiropractic, and I've been published in "Science and Medicine," also writing on chiropractic.
Q. What is your expertise in vaccination?
A. I read, I write, I Investigate, I study. After a while—
Q. Self-study, is that what you are telling me? I gather you've never worked—
A. I've taken seminars, I've listened, gone to lectures, I listen to researchers, I read medical journals.
Q. I gather you do agree that you have no expertise working with the drug company doing vaccination research?
Q. Let's get back to Koren Exhibit 2. Why did you write that letter to Dr. Barrett?
A. I don't remember at the time. It has to be in the context of what he had written to me, because this was a reply.
Q. Where does anything suggest that that's a reply?
A. It says "Re:" on top, R-E.
A. Somebody wrote to me, and I responded. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 3 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. I'm going to show you a document we have identified as Koren Exhibit 3, which bears at the top, August 2001 Newsletter.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes. This is my newsletter, my free newsletter.
Q. This is the free one?
Q. And do you - when was it circulated?
A. The date on it says August, 2001.
Q. And is this what you circulate to give to doctors to give to their patients, is that the purpose of this?
Q. What is the purpose of this?
A. To entertain.
Q. To entertain?
A. (The witness nodded.)
Q. You are shaking your head yes. I told you—
A. Yes. Sorry. Entertain and Inform. It's a personal newsletter.
Q. And how many people do you send this newsletter to?
A. I have no idea. I don't collect the addresses. They are sent out by someone else.
Q. How, what's the mechanism for sending this out?
A. I send it to a mailing house, e-mail mailing house, and they send it out.
Q. So you pay the e-mail mailing house to send it out?
Q. Which e-mailing mailing house were you using in August of 2001?
A. I don't remember. I can find out.
Q. Okay. We'll have you back with that question, to answer that question. Traditionally, e-mailing mailing houses indicate that they mail out to millions and millions of people. Did you select one that promotes that they mail out to millions of people?
Q. Do you know how this e-mail mailing - how do you - do you set parameters for selecting who you want this list to go to?
A. If you go to my web site, there will be a little box on It that says If you'd like to receive Dr. Koren's free e-mail newsletter, type in your e-mail address here.
A.This goes on automatic. It goes to the people who send out the newsletter automatically.
Q. Before you created your own people that you're communicating with, did you send it unsolicited to people?
A. No. Originally I would send it to people whose e-mail addresses I would have on file.
Q. Where did you get them?
A. From people who had written to me over the years.
Q. Okay. Did, does it go out to chiropractors?
A. I would hope so.
Q. Does it go out to nonchiropractors?
A. It's possible. You know when you have the Internet, it could go, things are sent all over. So I could have sent one to a friend, and before I know it, 20 people have written back to me.
Q. So this may, this electronic e-mail may have gone to tens of millions of people?
A. Not from me directly, but you know how the Internet works, you send something out, and people copy it and paste It and send it to others. I have no idea, I have no idea if it's going to anybody, actually. I assume it's going to some people.
Q. And well, you definitely have an e-mail house that you ask them to send it out.
A. I, they have the e-mail addresses, I send them my newsletter, and I say please send it out And they collect the e-mail addresses, and people sign up for it, people ask to not subscribe anymore, people send them to other people, people have given their friends' e-mail addresses to us unsolicited. We get all kinds of, you know, names sent to us. I have no record of it.
Q. But your purpose in putting this in the stream is not only to be distributed to the people that you send it to, but to enable them to send it to other people, correct?
A. No. It's just for chiropractors to read. I have current—whatever they want to do with it afterwards is there business. But my purpose is to send some entertaining information to keep myself in the public eye in the chiropractic world, you might say.
Q. So this is a business promotional venture?
A. In part. And then in the aspect that I have a business and I'm identified with the business and people like what I write, they might think more favorable upon using my products.
Q. Is this the very first time you had written about Dr. Stephen Barrett?
A. I don't know.
Q. So you may have written about him other times?
A. It's possible. I've written about him more than once, but I have no Idea whether it's two or five times, or if it was before this or after. I know I've mentioned him a few times.
Q. Did you ever have any personal interchange with Dr. Barrett before you started writing about him?
A. Dr. Barrett e-malled me to ask me for $10,000, so you know, or else he threatened a lawsuit
Q. Because you wrote this?
A. I've written things about—oh, yeah. I don't know if it was this. I know I had written about him. Before that it's possible I had some exchanges with him.
Q. Okay. Do I correctly understand that Dr. Barrett has never appeared as an expert witness in any case against you personally?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Okay. Why did you pick out Dr. Barrett to write this statement about?
A. Dr. Barrett has made himself a public figure in attacking chiropractors and saying very nasty things about the chiropractic profession that I considered to be untrue, and many chiropractors feel the same way about him.
Q. Can you show me one written article where Dr. Barrett you said attacked generically the chiropractic profession?
A. I don't have it with me, but he's written some very nasty things about us. In "New Physician," 1972, he called chiropractic the only licensed medical superstition in the United States, and he called chiropractors bone cracking charlatans. I don't exactly consider that a pleasant thing to say.
Q. So is that why you picked him out?
A. He has a continual record of attacking chiropractors locally and nationally. And he has been posturing many antichiropractor publications. He also wrote about me on a number of occasions in rather disparaging ways over the years.
Q. What did he write about you?
A. I don't have the specifics here, but it's on his web site.
Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to the paragraph right above Bumper Stickers. It says, "Speaking of Sportelli, there's pretty good news about Stephen Barrett, M.D., the delicensed quackbuster. Not good news for him, but it's pretty good for us. Here it is below." Did I read the sentence right?
A. Very good.
Q. Did you write that?
A. I did.
Q. Those are your words?
Q. And when you wrote them, you intended to write about Stephen Barrett, M.D—
Q.—correct? And you said he was delicensed.
Q. Do you know what delicensed means?
A. In the context I put it, is not having a license in good standing.
Q. I thought you said you were not delicensed by the state of West Virginia.
Q. And do you agree that delicensed means involuntary taking away of a license of a medical profession?
A. I don't know. That's a technical legal term.
Q. Well, do you agree that you are not delicensed by West Virginia?
A. As far as I know. But it might not, I might be dellcensed by West Virginia. That's a legal term that I'm not totally familiar with exactly how it's used.
Q. If you weren't familiar with what the words mean, why did you use it?
A. He doesn't have a license.
Q. He doesn't have a license?
A. In good standing in Pennsylvania, I'm led to believe.
A. As far as I know. I was told that that means dellcensed.
Q. Okay. Who told you that?
A. Tim Bolen.
Q. Tim Bolen?
A. B-O-L-I-N [sic], I believe.
Q. When did he tell you Dr. - did he specifically use the word delicensed?
A. I believe so.
Q. So you borrowed the word from Tim Bolen, not knowing what it meant?
Q. Did you make any investigation to determine whether or not what you were writing was true?
A. No. I took it from Tim Bolen's information . . . and passed It on to the profession.
Q. You don't, so you were passing on hearsay irrespective of whether it was true or not, without any investigation?
THE WITNESS: Should I...?
MR. TURNER: You did conduct an investigation. You talked to me, you talked to some others.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Before you wrote this?
Q. Okay. Who did you investigate with?
A. Mr. Bolen, Mr. Turner.
Q. Did Mr. Bolen specifically tell you that Dr. Barrett was de licensed?
A. He had it in one of his articles.
Q. Did Mr. -
MR. ORLOSKI: I'm sorry, I forgot your name already.
MR. TURNER: Turner.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. - Attorney Jim Turner tell you that Dr. Barrett was delicensed?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Sitting here today, do you have any information that Dr. Stephen Barrett was ever delicensed by the state of Pennsylvania or any place else in the United States of America?
A. No Information firsthand.
Q. Do you have any secondhand information other than what you've provided us?
A. Only the material that I've gotten from the sources I've mentioned.
Q. What material do you have?
A. From Tim Bolen.
Q. You just said you had material.
A. I mean the information I got from those sources from Mr. Bolen and Mr. Turner.
Q. Did you - okay. Are you telling me that you had oral conversations with both Tim Bolen and Mr. Turner?
A. I've had oral conversations with Mr. Turner and Mr. Bolen.
Q. Before you wrote this?
A. I don't know the exact time limit I would assume it was before.
Q. Okay. And you told us Mr. Bolen told you that Dr. Barrett was delicensed, but you do not know if Mr. Turner told you that?
Q. Now you are telling us you had material, which I assume means written material?
A. I had read material from Mr. Bolen.
Q. Okay. What did you read?
A. I read an article he had written about Stephen Barrett saying that he'd checked the sources at the Pennsylvania Medical Board, and it said that his license was not In good standing.
Q. That's something you read?
Q. And -
A. And he did also tell this to me.
Q. Can you show us the article?
A. Not here, no.
Q. Do you have the article?
A. I may.
Q. Do you know how to check a license of a professional health care worker here in Pennsylvania?
Q. You don't?
A. I haven't ever done it.
Q. So sitting here today, you're not prepared to give me any firsthand information indicating that what you wrote about Dr. Barrett was, that he was delicensed was true?
A. I don't have any sources in front of me.
Q. But you don't, your sources are hearsay. You have no firsthand information, correct?
A. That's correct
Q. So you were comfortable repeating what may have been a vicious lie without doing any investigation whatsoever?
A. I had heard over the years the same thing by a number of different people. I remember reading Tim Bolen's article, I published that.
Q. Tell us who else told you this vicious lie, because we are certainly comfortable filing additional lawsuits.
A. Okay. You are saying it's a vicious lie. I didn't say it was a vicious lie. And I didn't acknowledge it was a vicious lie. I'm telling you that I have heard over the years the same thing from a number of different people, and when Tim Bolen's article came through, I rephrased it.
A. When Tim Bolen's article came to me, I mentioned it in my newsletter, using a lot of his terms.
Q. So the terminology "delicensed" you attribute to Tim Bolen?
Q. And you are saying you're not even sure exactly what it means?
A. I used his statements.
Q. But when I talked about your license in West Virginia, you were sure that you were not delicensed?
A. I, actually I'm not.
Q. Now you're not sure.
A. Well, if you're using it, a very specific legal term, I don't know what the status is. It could be dellcensed, it could be unlicensed. I have no idea.
Q. Then there is a paragraph about Quackbusters Busted, correct?
Q. And then you go on to indicate that somebody christened Dr. Barrett as a "QuackPot."
Q. Where did you get that from?
A. I probably, maybe Tim Bolen. There may have been some other writing about Dr. Barrett using that term.
Q. And then you suggest to your readers that you should use that label in reference to Dr. Barrett. Correct?
Q. And was that intended to be a flattering term, "QuackPot"?
A. I don't think so.
Q. How did you intend it to be understood by the audience?
A. That this is someone who is as guilty, is guilty of what he accuses others of being.
Q. So he's guilty of something?
A. Or he is acting in a way that he's accusing others of acting. I don't want to use the word guilt, it sounds very legal and technical, but I'll say he's acting in a way that he accuses others of acting.
Q. Well, do you, do you agree that it's a, you are playing on the concept of crackpot?
Q. Okay. Were you trying to convey to your readers that Dr. Barrett was a crackpot?
A. I think so.
Q. And the reason you wanted to convey to your readers that he was a crackpot is what?
A. That he is wrong in what he's doing.
Q. So what is he doing that is wrong?
A. I feel that he's making very disparaging remarks and very incorrect remarks about chiropractic, and he's taking stuff out of context relative to chiropractic care, and that he's probably hurt a lot of people who normally would go to a chiropractor and don't because they have perhaps read or heard of some of the articles he's either written or promulgated.
Q. So because of your interpretation of his interpretation of chiropractic, you are telling everyone he is a crackpot, that's what it's intended to be?
A. Well, the word is "Quackpot," actually, because he calls himself a "Quackwatcher," apparently.
Q. Well, do you agree that there is a -
A. So, what, in his words calling him a "Quackwatcher", he is, in fact, inferring that chiropractors are quacks, so when I called him a "Quackpot" or he's referred to as a "Quackpot," that is sort of turning it around on him.
Q. But to call him a crackpot, I think -
Q.—you were playing with the concept of crackpot?
A. I, well, I didn't make up the word. I assume that the person that wrote it was using the, it was a play on the word crackpot
Q. And when you used it, you were using it in that context?
A. I would say so.
Q. With that intention?
A. Well, they did say he particularly doesn't like that term, so I said let's use it, because he has been calling chiropractors quacks for decades now, and in fact, I felt that he was just as guilty of acting in a quackery-like manner.
Q. So you were accusing him of being a quack?
A. I accuse him of acting in a quackery-like manner. A quack means pretender of medical care, technically. And it, it actually is a derivation from the word mercury, which was quacks, quicksilver, and it's based on dentists that would use quicksilver and mercury in the treatments, they were eventuaily called quacks. So it's become a term used to say a pretender of medical care. Now, a chiropractor practicing properly is not an M.D. and doesn't practice medicine. Technically they shouldn't even be called quacks, because they're not pretending to be medical doctors. Q.Are you telling me that you never heard of a chiropractor pretending to be a medical doctor?
A. There may be individual chiropractors who practice illegally and unethically, just as there are M.D.s and lawyers that practice the same.
Q. Now, you talked about the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council.
A. That was, I was passing on a news article I had gotten.
Q. Well, do you have anything to do with the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
Q. Did you found it?
A. I have nothing to do with it.
Q. Do you know who does?
Q. What do you mean by the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
A. I don't know anything about them.
Q. Well, you identified somebody by the name of Jim Turner, Esquire as an attorney associated with that entity.
Q. Did you know that, or were you just again repeating what somebody told you?
A. I was repeating a news article I had been given.
Q. Okay. And who gave you that news article?
A. I don't know. I don't remember.
Q. Whose news article was it?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Was this another Tim Bolen—
A. I don't know. It could have been. I don't have any recollection of where exactly I got it from. I get hundreds of news articles every week.
Q. Do you know who New Century Press is?
Q. Do you know who Hulda Clark is, H-U-L-D-A?
A. I know she's written some books, but I'm not familiar with her work.
Q. Do you have any relationship with the Health Freedom Defense Council?
Q. Do you know what it is?
Q. But you identify it in this article, correct?
A. (The witness nodded.)
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yeah. I passed on a news report about them.
Q. And you identify their lawyer as Jim Turner, Esquire, correct?
Q. And you are seated -
A. I rewrote it, but this is from, it's from a news press release that I was given.
Q. And the Jim Turner identified in your article, do you know if he exists or not?
A. I believe he exists.
Q. And he's sitting to your left?
A. I believe so.
Q. And before that point in time, when you were writing this article talking about the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council, did you know who Jim Turner was?
Q. So you already had a relationship with him?
Q. And he had represented you in other matters?
Q. How did you know about a lawsuit supposedly for ten million dollars against Dr. Barrett?
A. That was sent to me as a news release.
Q. Who sent it to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay. And is that what prompted this letter?
A. No. What prompted that letter was the letter that was first sent to me.
Q. Do you know who sent the letter to you?
A. Ali I had was, on this, was email@example.com. You're telling me it's Stephen Barrett, so I'm assuming it's Stephen Barrett that sent it. S.B. He sent me the original letter and I was responding to it with this. But I don't have his e-mail on file.
Q. Are you sure of that?
A. This is, this thing I have, excuse me, this Exhibit 2 is a response to firstname.lastname@example.org. I don't know exactly what I was responding to.
Q. Let me try to jog your memory, see if this works. When you reply to an e-mail that somebody sends you, in the normal course of business, you push the reply button, correct?
Q. And when you push the reply button, their letter does not disappear but their letter is also included in the reply?
A. Not in my e-mail.
Q. So you're saying in your e-mail, when you push the reply button -
A. You get a blank screen.
Q. You get a blank screen?
A. Yes. Now, sometimes I copy what's sent, but I didn't do It this time.
Q. Who is your e-mail service?
Q. And in order—
A. That's the way it works for me. That's the way it works. You press reply, you get a blank screen, and then you can type something and -
Q. Let me just tell you, that's totally not my experience with AOL, so...
A. I'm sorry.
Q. I'm always willing to learn.
A. Well, as you can see, I sent them an e-mail. If this Is the printout, there was no original letter here, because—
Q. That's correct.
A.—because that's the way AOL—
MR. TURNER: That's the way mine works, too.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. You are just using the traditional AOL software, correct?
Q. And you did not make any modifications of the AOL software in order to get it to eliminate the message you were responding to?
Q. And you are, if you are responding, if somebody sends you a message about Dr. Barrett being sued for ten million dollars, and then they tell you to respond to Dr. Barrett and give you his address, couldn't you have generated exactly that same letter?
A. No. Because it's got a reply. I replied to somebody.
Q. Well, AOL experts will talk about that later. Okay. Do you know what happened to the ten million dollar lawsuit filed against Dr. Barrett?
Q. Sitting here today, you still don't know?
A. I haven't followed it up.
Q. So if I told you that the ten million dollar lawsuit was dismissed, you wouldn't know if it's true or false?
A. I wouldn't know the details of the dismissal, if it were dismissed. And I wouldn't know whatever legal strategies were involved in dismissing it or any of the details. So you know, I could not answer that question honestly.
Q. So you think there was strategies involved in dismissing the lawsuit?
A. There could be.
Q. So you do know what happened to the lawsuit?
A. I have no idea. You said if you told me it were dismissed.
A. I said, well, I'd have to know the details if it were dismissed.
Q. Well, have you, do I take it you haven't shared with your readers the fact that your good news that Dr. Barrett was sued is now no news because the lawsuit has been dismissed, you haven't shared that?
A. What I have gotten were press releases that I sent out
Q. Say that again?
A. I get press releases from people and articles that I sometimes put in my newsletters and send it out.
Q. Is this from a press release?
A. That's probably a reworking of a press release—
Q. Can you get us that?
A. - or an article that someone has written.
Q. Can you get us, do you have that press release?
A. I don't think so. I can look.
Q. I want you to look under the paragraph, "But there's more...".
Q. "14 months ago I was told about the above lawsuit." Correct?
Q. Did I read it correctly?
Q. Okay. So you are saying you knew, you had advance knowledge of the lawsuit 14 months before it occurred? Do I read what you're saying correctly?
A. Possibly. This could be incorrect. I could have just gotten the information and was told that it's 14 months old. I, I would hope that what I wrote is accurate, but I don't remember.
Q. "Barrett is now in trouble." Did I read your sentence correctly?
Q. What does that mean, he's in trouble?
A. Well, I have no Idea. I got some information from someone who said that there is more to do about the Barrett situation, and that he's in trouble. So I said, please give me more Information when you got a chance.
Q. But before you had more information, you were telling your readers that he was in trouble?
A. That was what I was led to believe, yes.
Q. Is that positive information about Dr. Barrett, or negative information about Dr. Barrett?
A. That he was in trouble?
A. I don't know exactly what the article was referring to now. I don't have it in front of me.
Q. What did you intend to convey to your readers, positive information about Dr. Barrett, or negative information about Dr. Barrett?
A. Actually, I was intending for them to keep subscribing to the newsletters so I can keep them informed as to the late breaking developments.
Q. But you had—
A. I didn't have the specifics on it. I was told I would be sent specifics.
Q. Who told you they were going to send specifics?
A. Whoever sent me the original Information.
Q. Who is that?
A. I don't remember.
A. It could have been Tim Bolen, it could be other people that were involved in the lawsuit.
Q. Well, when I read what you write, I get the impression that you used Dr. Barrett as a whipping boy so you could make money from chiropractors. Do I have it right?
A. No. This is not a paid for newsletter. This is a free newsletter. I don't make any money sending it out.
Q. I think you told me that you send this out free to keep your name in the chiropractic community because you are a writer and a businessman.
A. Sure. I like to keep my name in the community.
Q. So this is a form of advertising for you?
A. I imagine you could say it's a form of self-promotion.
Q. And I am right, then, that you used Dr. Barrett as a whipping boy amongst chiropractors so you could make money in your other businesses?
A. What do you mean by whipping boy?
Q. You're saying the "QuackPot," you're saying he's delicensed, you're saying he's in trouble, you're saying he's being sued for ten million dollars, none of which you know to be true, correct?
A. I was, I got Information from various sources and passed It on. That's correct. That was all secondary.
Q. It's all secondary, and you sitting here today don't even know if it's true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were comfortable using it?
A. I felt that my sources were quite credible.
Q. And your sources, you can't even tell me who your sources are?
A. Not all of them right now, but I could probably check them out.
Q. And when I told you that the lawsuit was discontinued, you did not know that, and you did not even follow up with that and tell your readers "I screwed up, I made a mistake"?
A. I don't believe that that was the actual case.
Q. Well, what is the basis for believing otherwise, since you told me you don't know what the actual case is?
A. Because there is, there might be other developments happening as a result.
Q. Well, do you have, are you privy to inside information as to what's transpiring in other litigation that you're not involved in?
A. Possibly at the time I was.
Q. Today are you privy to inside information about what's going on in other litigation that you're not involved in?
A. I look at material all the time about all kinds of things.
Q. My question, are you privy to inside information about other lawsuits that you're not a party to?
A. On occasion.
Q. Right now?
A. At this moment?
Q. Right. About Dr. Barrett.
A. Honestly, I don't remember. I could have Information about him in my files somewhere.
Q. Do you have a file for Dr. Barrett?
Q. Can you produce that as part of the—
A. If I can locate it.
MR. ORLOSKI: I'd like to see the Dr. Barrett file.
MR. TURNER: If there is one.
MR. ORLOSKI: I have to go to the restroom. Could I talk to you for two minutes? (A brief recess was taken.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. The Health Freedom Legal Defense Council, do you know if that actually exists?
A. I got information from various credible sources that told me about the organization, and I repeated it as a news story. I don't know anything further than what I wrote.
Q. And you, you identified Jim Turner, your lawyer in this case, as a member of that Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
A. That was in the news article I received.
Q. So do you know if that's true?
A. I only repeated what the article said.
Q. My question is, do you know if it's true? Have you ever asked Mr. Turner if he belonged to the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
Q. Do you know that he does not belong to the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
A. I don't know either way.
Q. Do you know [Hulda Clark's attorney]?
Q. Do you know a [an attoney] that practices law in California under the name of the Health Legal Defense Council?
A. No, I don't
Q. Do you know if there is Health Freedom Legal Defense Council?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know if Jim Turner has a professional relationship with [that attorney]?
Q. Do you get letters from your lawyer?
Q. You've never seen your lawyer's letterhead?
A. I think we have almost never communicated by letter. It's usually by phone, or e-malls on occasion.
MR. TURNER: Are you asking if [that attorney] is on our letterhead? He's not. And . . . he and I don't have a professional relationship.
MR. ORLOSKI: I assumed you didn't, but...
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Can you tell me what steps you take before republishing hearsay information to determine whether or not it's accurate?
A. I look to see if it comes from various sources, if there is background information on it. The material that I wrote in this newsletter actually was the culmination of my getting a lot of news reports from various sources and some of them quite lengthy, and mentioning people who I respect and whose opinions I feel are not spurious and who I think are able to, you know, say things honestly without making things up. There is always a possibility I can reproduce something that is spurious, but I try not to. I try to be responsible.
Q. Well, I'm trying to understand what steps you take. And I think you told me you read what you write and you make a decision. That's all you do?
A. Well, it's not just a matter of reading one article. You know, you might, I get dozens of articles from various sources. Various press releases, articles by others, people that are directly Involved, attorneys put things on the web, and I try to coalesce them in what is a bite-sized chunk.
Q. What steps did you take to determine whether or not Dr. Barrett was delicensed?
A. I had gotten a lot of information about it from various sources over the years.
Q. What sources?
A. At the moment, I don't have recall of them.
Q. Okay. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 4 was marked for identification.)
MR. ORLOSKI: That was in your request for production.
THE WITNESS: Let me know what you want to buy and I'll give you a discount.
DR. BARRETT: What, how much?
THE WITNESS: Depends on the size of the order.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Can you identify what has been identified as Koren 4.
Q. Can you tell me what that is?
A. This says Koren Publications Newsletter, Tedd Koren's August 2, I imagine it's 2001. It looks like the 2 was cut off.
Q. What, is that - look at Koren 3. Is that the same version in a different format of Koren 3?
A. Let me see. Yeah. It looks pretty similar. There is a sigma I believe here, here and there, some typos.
Q. What's the significance of the sigma there?
A. I have no idea. I didn't put it there.
Q. Okay. Do you have a web site?
Q. Could it possibly be one is from a web site and the other is from the newsletter?
A. It's possible.
Q. Okay. Look at Koren 3 again. Is that a web—
A. Yes. This is definitely apparently right from the web site, because it has the return address on top.
A. And the second one, Exhibit 4, on the bottom it says printed for Stephen Barrett, M.D. and his address. So this was obviously a secondary source of some kind.
Q. But that is, so the one is the web site version, the other is the electronic e-mail version?
A. I don't know.
MR. TURNER: Also, this is missing page 1.
MR. ORLOSKI: Well, I wasn't sure that I have page 1 that went with it.
MR. TURNER: Because I think they're identical, everything on here is identical to what's over here, this stuff above The Therapeutic State.
DR. BARRETT: Here's a better version of the e-mail one. I printed it. For some reason my printer has formatted this one better. This is the e-mail one. I just printed it today out of my files. Maybe you should use that.
MR. ORLOSKI: Well, since we already marked that, let's mark that Koren 5. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 5 was marked for identification.) This is identical to Number 3?
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Let me-
A. Oh, okay. This was apparently sent over the Internet.
MR. TURNER: Pulled off the web site.
THE WITNESS: Well, no. I don't - yeah, this one, because it has an e-mail address on it.
MR. TURNER: I see.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Let me see if I can clarify this. You have a web site, correct?
Q. And that web site can be printed down to somebody's printer, correct?
A. I don't know. I have never done it myself. I assume it's possible. I haven't done it myself.
Q. And you also have an electronic newsletter?
Q. And the electronic newsletter is, can be printed by the recipient?
A. If people get it, I assume they can. Like you can print any e-mail. We keep all newsletters on the web site.
Q. Now, did you say the exact same thing about Dr. Barrett being delicensed in two separate formats, one, meaning you put that on your web site, which is Koren Exhibit 2, and in addition to putting it on your web site, you mailed it electronically to your free mailing list?
Q. Did there come a time when Dr. Koren demanded a retraction from you?
A. Dr. Barrett, you mean?
Q. Dr. Barrett demanded a retraction from you?
Q. How did you get the demand for the retraction?
A. I got an e-mail.
Q. From him?
A. From Dr. Barrett, yes.
Q. When did you get the demand for the retraction?
A. I don't have the exact date.
Q. Was it still, was the fact that he was delicensed still appearing on the web site when he, you got the demand?
A. I believe so.
Q. Once you got the demand for retraction, did you make an investigation with the licensing authorities as to what the status of Dr. Sarrett's license was?
Q. Did you immediately take it off the web site?
A. I asked my legal counsel what they thought, and they said just take it off.
Q. How long did it take you to get it off?
A. The Internet is pretty Instantaneous. I just called my tech guy and said please take off the references to Dr. Barrett, told them which ones they were, and he removed them.
Q. How long after Dr. Barrett contacted you?
A. Probably shortly thereafter. I don't know the exact dates. Maybe within a week. I don't know for sure.
Q. Did you respond to Dr. Sarrett's e-mail and tell him you were taking him off the web site?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you do anything in the nature of a retraction, saying we regret the error, Dr. Barrett is not delicensed?
Q. Why not?
A. Like I said, the term delicensed is a term that is quite possibly accurate for Dr. Barrett.
Q. So sitting here, do you still believe that's an accurate usage of the terminology?
A. This is a legal question that has to be decided.
Q. Well, you weren't writing a legal publication, were you?
A. I was copying material from a credible source and putting it on my web site.
Q. Sut your publication is not a legal publication?
A. That's correct.
Q. You were not intending to write a legal publication?
A. That's correct.
Q. You were intending to amuse and entertain -
A. And inform.
Q.—and inform chiropractors by making a claim that Dr. Barrett was delicensed?
A. Well, I would like to think of it as informing, rather than amusing and entertaining. (Deposition interrupted.) (Koren Deposition Exhibit Numbers 6 and 7 were marked for identification.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Let me show you what we have identified as Koren 6.
Q. Ask you to look at that.
A. Okay. Yeah. I see. Tim Bolen is an op-ed writer, right here.
A. This paragraph on page 1.
Q. When you say Tim Bolen is an op-ed writer, what do you mean?
A. I copied down information about Tim Bolen that he sent me, I imagine, or that I had gotten from one of my sources.
Q. All right. And-
A. And this is the web site that I imagine it refers to . . . savedrclark.org. Okay.
Q. So tell me exactly what you did. Who wrote Koren 6?
A. I wrote most of it, except, you know, for the letters and maybe some miscellaneous material, stuff I've gotten from our journals and other sources that I've complied. It's really a, I'm really the editor and writer, not just the editor.
Q. And Koren 7 is a Tim Bolen piece?
A. Koren 7 is a printout of the piece that was on the web site called "21st Century Evil Incarnate, The Quackbuster Conspiracy," opinion by Tim Bolen.
Q. Do I correctly understand in Koren 6 had the link on that page to get to Koren 7?
MR. TURNER: Link, or was it, is it a link, or just an identification?
THE WITNESS: You know, I think it might have been just an identification, because I don't think I was set up to getting links then.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Doesn't the fact it's underlined on that printout mean it's a link?
DR. BARRETT: Yes.
A. It usually does.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
A. I don't know if it worked on my computer. I would hope so. We try to make it easy to get around.
Q. So were you incorporating the Bolen piece into your work?
A. Well, I wrote, for information go to the Bolen piece.
Q. So you were -
A. I was sending people to that site to, for information on what Tim Bolen wrote about.
Q. And this was, when were you doing that?
A. The date is February, 2002, apparently.
Q. And -
A. Yeah. February.
Q.—did you read the Bolen piece?
A. Yes, I probably did.
Q. And you wanted your readers to read that piece?
A. Yes. Yes, I did.
Q. And is there a reference to Dr. Barrett in that piece?
A. You know, I don't know. Let me see. I don't see any reference to him on the first page. I might be missing something. But I don't see any reference to Dr. Barrett Oh, here he writes about the war is being run by a delicensed M.D. and so, or out of a basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania. So I assume that might be Dr. Barrett, since he's from Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bolen has, refers to him as a delicensed M.D. But he doesn't mention him by name.
Q. Okay. So there is a reference again to an M.D. in Allentown who is a quackbuster, who is delicensed?
A. One would assume so, yeah.
Q. And that, when you sit there reading it today, that sounds like he's talking about Dr. Barrett?
Q. So, and you knew that when you put his link on your paper that Tim Bolen is still out there spreading the gospel that Dr. Barrett is delicensed?
A. Apparently so.
Q. So even though you took it off after a request by Dr. Barrett, you republished the same claim about him again on or after February 10, 2002?
A. Maybe, maybe not. I might have taken it out, you know, I may have the dates off. I may not have spoken to legal counsel until later and then had it taken out. I honestly, I don't know the exact dates, because the information I got from Mr., Dr. Barrett or the threatening e-malls I got from him may have gone on for a while before I finally pulled that article. I don't know the exact dates. I thought I did it right after I heard from him, but I may not have heard from him until February of 2002 that made me decide to have the articles pulled.
Q. Okay. (Koren Deposition Exhibit Number 8 was marked for identification.)
A. Oh, good. This is June 9th, 2002. So this is after I wrote this about Dr. Barrett.
BY MR ORLOSKI:
Q. You're getting ahead of--
Q.—ahead of us and -
A. I don't know.
Q. Let me ask you some questions.
MR. TURNER: Is this Exhibit 8?
DR. KOREN: This is Exhibit 8. Do you have a copy?
MR. TURNER: Yeah.
DR. KOREN: Okay.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. You have in front of you Exhibit 8, Koren 8. Can you tell us what this is?
A. That is a letter from Stephen Barrett, an e-mail letter from Stephen Barrett.
Q. And this was—did you receive this?
Q. And did you read it?
Q. Okay. And in that letter, Dr. Barrett suggests an offer of settlement in lieu of a suit, correct?
Q. And it has a date and time when he mailed it, correct?
A. On the top, yes.
Q. June 9, 2002?
Q. And that is when he mentioned removing the, removing it from the web site, correct?
Q. So do we, can we assume - and that's when you responded to this letter and removed it?
Q. So it was on your news, on your web site August, 2001 through June of 2002, correct?
A. That is, yes, I would say so.
Q. And it was not only on your web site, it was also, it was also communicated by your electronic free newsletter, correct?
Q. And then it was republished in February of 2002 by incorporating -
MR. TURNER: Object to that question.
MR. ORLOSKI: Let me finish my question, then you can object.
MR. ORLOSKI: It was republished by you on February 10th, 2002 by incorporating the Tim Bolen piece and having the link to his site talking about the delicensed doctor out of, running out of his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania?
MR. TURNER: Objection. Republished is a legal implication, so, just so we are, he's not talking about any legal question about that. Understand?
MR. ORLOSKI: Yeah. I understand your objection.
A. It looks like it's a slightly different article. But some of the information is similar, I believe.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
A. But it's, no, it's, this is actually just a few lines, whereas the original one was a bit longer and I talked about other things.
A. It's not republished, actually. It's a totally different article about the same subject.
Q. And you incorporated the delicensing feature from Tim Bolen by usage of the link?
Q. Okay. And that was your intention to do that, to get that link site into your readership's hands?
A. I wanted people to read the entire article that I referred to, and I gave them the site to go there.
Q. So does this refresh your recollection, that wasn't taken off of the web site until June of 2002?
A. Yes. After I got the letter from Dr. Barrett.
Q. And did Dr. Barrett ask you for money to settle this case in this communication?
A. Not in the first letter, no.
Q. Did you accept his offer of settlement?
Q. Why not?
A. I discussed it with legal counsel and decided against settling.
Q. Well, he asked you to remove the posted newsletters that pertain to him, correct?
Q. Okay. Well, he explained to you what delicensed meant, meaning having one's license taken away. Correct?
Q. In our earlier communication about you and your West Virginia license, that was how you used the term delicensed, correct?
A. Well, you asked me about it, and I, the terms, looking back as specifically a legal term, I probably wouid have not said exactly that.
Q. Did you go around telling people you've been delicensed in West Virginia?
A. I don't. Nobody ever asks me.
Q. I mean, do I have your permission to go on the web site and create a web site saying Dr. Koren was delicensed in West Virginia as a chiropractor?
A. It might be absolutely true.
Q. I have your permission to do that?
A. I would assume if it was correct, you do.
Q. I'm asking for your permission to use delicensed, meaning you just let your license lapse, I'll gladly do it for you. Do I have your permission to create a web site saying you were delicensed in West Virginia?
A. If you're accurate and if it's legal, yes.
Q. I'm asking you for permission to say that.
A. I'd have to find out if it's the correct term, but you brought up a very interesting topic with me. I have to know for sure if that's the correct term to use.
Q. You don't want anybody saying you're delicensed, do you?
A. I don't know if it's a proper legal term. I'm trying to, I mean, I'm trying to answer your question. You've brought up some very good points, and I'm trying to say, well, is it an accurate term or not. If it's an accurate term, by all means, use it.
Q. If it's not an accurate term?
A. If it's not an accurate term, then don't use it.
Q. I'd be presenting you in a false light to the public, correct?
A. If, in fact, your premise is correct.
Q. Okay. And Dr. Barrett in this letter explains to you what delicense means?
A. That -
Q. Having one's license taken away, correct?
A. That's what Dr. Barrett said it meant.
Q. And he told you his license has never been taken away?
A. That's what he wrote.
Q. In other words, he's telling you: I'm just like you in West Virginia, I let my license lapse, let it go into inactive status?
A. If he's being truthful and it's an honest representation. But I don't know Dr. Barrett, and like I said, I got it from various sources that his license was dellcensed, his, he was delicensed.
Q. Well, are you trying to tell us today that you still believe he was delicensed?
A. if you're telling me it's a technical legal term, then I'd have to investigate it further and find out exactly how it's used so I use it accurately and properly.
Q. You are a licensed health professional by the state of Pennsylvania?
Q. You have to pay a fee every year?
Q. You have to do continuing—
A. Every state has different requirements.
Q. In Pennsylvania you have to do the continuing education?
Q. If you don't do your continuing education, you lose your license?
A. You could, yes.
Q. And you get these updates every year from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
Q. And they have an address, correct?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And you know where to send your money?
Q. Send it to the Department of State?
A. Just like you.
Q. And actually, not just like me.
A. You don't have the Department of State, Bureau of Occupational Affairs?
Q. Supreme Court board.
A. Really? I didn't know.
Q. You know about the Bureau of Occupational Affairs?
A. Yes. That's who, the part of the state that oversees chiropractors and other professionals.
Q. Doctors and osteopaths?
A. I believe so.
Q. And it's in the Department of State, and they have a phone number, correct?
Q. And you can call and get a—
Q. And you never did that for Dr. Barrett?
A. I never did that.
Q. Even sitting here today, correct?
Q. So he told you, I'm not delicensed, he told you the racketeering suit was dismissed?
A. That's what he said.
Q. You knew the players, you knew who to contact to find out if that was true or not?
A. I removed the articles in the newsletters on the web site that he didn't, that mentioned Stephen Barrett, but I didn't go any further and check.
Q. Okay. You knew who the players in the California racketeering lawsuit were, correct?
Q. You knew who to contact to find out if he was telling you the truth?
Q. Did you contact them if he was telling the truth?
Q. Okay. So all he asked you to do was remove it and post a retraction saying he's not delicensed and the racketeering suit was dismissed?
A. Actually, If I'm, I just removed the materials that were offending to him, I didn't want any trouble. But I didn't want to do the other things that he asked for.
Q. Why didn't you want to do the other things that he asked for?
A. I didn't want to give him so much press.
A. I felt he was asking for a lot of press, and I didn't want to give it to him.
Q. You admit that you gave him the press that he's de licensed and that he is subject to a ten million dollar lawsuit, correct?
Q. Once he told you both things were factually inaccurate, why did you not feel you had an obligation to correct your error?
A. Things can be factually inaccurate, but actually accurate in a different context.
Q. So even though - it was just purely animosity between you and Dr. Barrett?
A. No, not at all, not at all. In fact, later on I asked about the ten million dollar lawsuit, and was told that that was a rather disingenuous statement by Dr. Barrett, and that there was much more to it than that.
Q. Who did you ask?
A. Some - who did I ask? It wasn't Tim Bolen, or it may have been Tim Bolen. I don't remember. I remember some people involved in the health freedom movement, and they told me Dr. Barrett was being a little bit coy with his wording and with his statement, that he wasn't telling the whole story.
Q. Well, what was the, what did you understand the whole story to be?
A. My understanding, there was more to come, and that Dr. Barrett was still in trouble, there was more to come and I should wait, which I did.
Q. So you were told, you were told the lawsuit was dismissed?
A. I was told that was only part of the story.
Q. You were told it was dismissed? Yes or no.
A. Dr. Barrett told me it was dismissed.
Q. Tim Bolen told you it was dismissed?
A. They told me with a, if it was Tim Bolen, if it were Tim Bolen, excuse me, there was, they told me that that was only part of the story, and there was much more to it, and that just saying it was dismissed really wasn't compietely accurate in a larger picture.
Q. Did you ask him for the larger picture?
A. I did.
Q. What did they tell you the larger picture was?
A. They said we have to wait, more information is coming.
Q. Did you tell your readership, "I made a mistake, he was not delicensed, he's a retired physician, and by the way, the suit was dismissed, and maybe there will be some more, maybe there won't, but the lawsuit was dismissed," did you share that with your readers?
A. Not yet. When things settle down and I find the information accurate and it's clear, I may very well share it with my readers.
Q. So you, would you agree with me that you've never published the retraction as demanded by Dr. Barrett?
Q. And that was an intentional decision on your part?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you did not accept his offer of settlement communicated to you on June 9th, 2002?
A. I may have told him that the articles dealing with him have been removed, but I did not feel it necessary to do the rest.
Q. To do a retraction?
Q. Have you ever investigated, did you ever ask anybody to show you the pleadings in that lawsuit?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Have you ever seen the pleadings in that lawsuit?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Have you ever seen the order from the judge dismissing it?
A. I honestly don't remember.
Q. Have you any reason to believe, sitting here today, that Tim Bolen is not a reputable source?
Q. Is Tim Bolen a chiropractor?
Q. Is Tim Bolen -
A. Not—he may be. I don't know. He may be, actually. He hasn't advertised himself as a chiropractor.
Q. So you have no information indicating he's a chiropractor?
A. I don't know his personal background.
Q. Well, do you know what he does for a living?
A. He states that he's a consumer, I think a consumer advocate for, health care freedom advocate, I don't know more about it.
Q. Health care freedom advocate?
A. I'm paraphrasing. He may be just called, calling him a consumer advocate or heaith consumer advocate or advocate.
Q. Do you know what qualifications he has to be a consumer advocate or a health care advocate?
A. No, no.
Q. Do you know if he graduated from college?
A. I don't know anything about him personally.
Q. So you have no way of evaluating his credentials to be doing what he says he is doing?
A. I spoke to a number of people who told me that his work is very good and that it is rather credible. And I asked a few different people in different areas, and I never heard anything bad about him. I heard only good things from people that I respected who should know.
A. Therefore, I repeated it.
Q. Who did you check with?
A. I had a number of sources. I sent e-mail questions to many people. I don't have the exact names right here in front of me.
Q. So you can't tell us who you checked with -
A. Not at the moment, no.
Q. - to determine whether or not Tim Bolen is a quack or not a quack?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you don't know if he's a quack?
A. I don't even know If he's a man or a woman.
Q. Did you have any information indicating that the ten million dollars for the racketeering and the malicious prosecution case filed against Dr. Barrett was justified?
A. From some materials I read about it, it seemed to be justified.
Q. What did you read about it?
A. I read some articles on the web about it.
Q. Prepared by whom?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Were these press releases prepared by Tim Bolen—
A. No. Tim--
Q. - advertising this lawsuit?
A. Tim Bolen was just one of a number of sources I would look at.
Q. Were they, all the sources you were looking at, were they people who were involved directly in the lawsuit?
A. I don't remember right now.
Q. So you were not in a position to determine whether or not the underlying charges were factually based?
A. Correct. I was basing on what I thought was accurate information.
Q. Can you identify the documents you've seen relating to Dr. Barrett's medical license, just what other hearsay reports you received?
A. Not at this time.
Q. Now, you seem to believe that Dr. Barrett was involved in an FTC investigation of you and your publications. Is that accurate?
A. I don't know if I said that precisely. I said I suspected he may have been involved, but I would not, I don't believe I accused him directly, because right now I don't have any absolute proof. He did offer to testify for the FTC if he were so asked.
A. And there is some circumstantial stuff, perhaps.
Q. So was there an FTC investigation into your publications?
A. There were.
Q. And when was that investigation?
A. I think 1994 or '95.
Q. Do you have any firsthand information that Dr. Barrett in some way caused that investigation?
Q. Do you believe that even though you don't have information?
A. I said I suspected he might have something to do with it.
Q. So it was a suspicion and nothing more?
Q. And what was the basis for the FTC investigating your publications?
A. The exact charges were false and misleading advertising.
Q. And how were the charges initiated?
A. I got a letter in the mail.
Q. And what did the letter in the mail say?
A.I don't remember, actually. It was rather a long letter. But the gist of it, I was being investigated, that there were complaints from unnamed sources against me, and they were investigating whether or not Koren Publications was guilty of false and misleading advertising.
Q. How long did the investigation take?
A. Six and a half years.
Q. What was the end result of the investigation?
A. They found nothing wrong. They dropped everything. Not a single charge was leveled against me or my company.
Q. Okay. And who was your attorney in that investigation?
A. Jim Turner.
MR. TURNER: You had many attorneys.
DR. KOREN: Actually, that's true.
A. I had three different major law firms, and with Mr. Turner's law firm, I think we had five or six different attorneys that were directly involved.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. And did anyone from the FTC ever tell you that they were, Dr. Barrett was a person who caused this investigation?
A. They refused to answer any of my questions about sources.
Q. So the answer is no, no one from the FTC ever told you that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you've indicated that Dr. Barrett has written things about you.
A. It's on his web site.
Q. And what did he write about you that was not true?
A. Well, I'd have to go over it, every line, and point out things that were either not true or were inaccurate and, you know, In the context they were written in, were slanted or false and misleading.
Q. Have you ever filed a lawsuit against Dr. Barrett for saying false and misleading things about you?
A. No, not yet.
Q. What, what do you say, what do you remember from his web site that you say was false and misleading about you?
A. I don't really remember the specifics. I remember when the suit was dropped, or the Investigation was dropped by the FTC, he made remarks as to why it was dropped that were compietely inaccurate. And when I told him they were inaccurate, instead of investigating further, he just said to me, so what is it, and I said go to the FTC and ask them or call my lawyers. And apparently he never did any of this.
DR BARRETT: I did both.
DR. KOREN: Very good.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Well, so he gave you the opportunity to explain what was false and misleading, and you elected not directly to tell him.
A. Correct. Because I really didn't understand all the nuances, and told him to go to my representatives or other peopie.
Q. You told him to go to the FTC?
Q. Do you know what the FTC told him?
Q. So you don't know if he accurately portrayed what the FTC told him in the web site about you?
A. I know that what he had written was inaccurate, and I let him know that, but I did not further, I didn't visit his web site very often, so I did not go any further into it.
Q. What other, what other inaccurate thing did he write about you?
A. Honestly, I don't know off the top of my head. I can review his web site, perhaps, and if he still has the articles up there, and let you know. But a lot of his, his knack of saying exactly the right thing but putting it in a certain context that makes it very misleading.
Q. You are saying, are you, did you just say he told the truth about you, but he told the truth about you in a context that you did not appreciate, is that...?
A. No. That was false and misleading.
Q. So you're saying he told the truth, but he told the truth in such a way that it was false and misleading about you; is that what you're saying?
A. Sort of like asking if a person has stopped beating his wife. The implication is that he had been beating his wife. So saying yes or no doesn't answer the question fully. And he would put things in a context that would lead people to believe inaccurate and misleading things.
Q. Give me the most egregious thing he ever said about you that was misleading.
A. I don't have it in front of me. I'm sorry. I would have to go through his web sites and his material if it's still up and tell.
Q. You, in other words, it wasn't so memorable to you and so far out of base that you can sit here today and remember it?
A. Not all. There was much that he said, but there was so much and so poorly said and inaccurate in the way it was presented that it was just too overwhelming to pick one thing. I don't remember one specific.
Q. Pick as many as you want.
A.I don't remember them right now. I'm sorry. This is a lot of material. It was a number of years ago.
Q. So you have no specific recollection of anything other than the circumstances surrounding the end of the FTC investigation?
A. I remember that one, yes.
Q. That's the only thing you can remember?
A. At the time, right now, yes, that's the only one I specifically remember.
Q. In your April, 2001 newsletter, did you write, "Samuel Homola, D.C., like Stephen Barrett, appears to have no life other than attacking chiropractors"?
A. Yes. I probably did.
Q. Do you know who Dr., who Samuel Homola is?
A. He is a chiropractor in Florida, on the West Coast, who has, who I wouid characterize as a self-hating chiropractor. So, and like Stephen Barrett, he built himself by destroying other people or trying to knock down other people. He doesn't create anything; he just seeks to destroy and hurt.
Q. Is it a fair statement that you and Dr. Homola have a different idea as to the standards under which chiropractors should practice chiropractic?
A. I say we probabiy disagree on most aspects of chiropractic care.
Q. Okay. And is that similarly true for you and Dr. Barrett, you disagree, you and he disagree as to the standards to which the chiropractors should be held?
A. I really don't know what all his specifics about what Dr. Barrett believes in. I don't feel he's a good authority on chiropractic.
Q. How about Dr. Homola, is he a good authority on chiropractic?
A. I am not familiar with all of his writings, but the little I 've read leads me to believe he really is rather misguided in much of his statements.
Q. But he is a chiropractor, correct?
A. He is a chiropractor. He does have a degree.
Q. Isn't there some kind of internal board for certification of chiropractors?
Q. Are you certified?
Q. No. Certified.
A. What is the difference? (Discussion was held off the record. )
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Do you, are there - okay. Let's try it this way.
Q. If I told you Dr. Barrett was a board-certified psychiatrist, would you know what I'm talking about?
A. I understand that board certification is a level of specialty that is, that requires a lot of extra study and exhibition of events, knowledge or knowledge of a certain specialty. I hope I've explained it right.
Q. Do you know if Dr. Barrett is, in fact, board certified?
A. From my understanding, he's not board-certified, that he failed board certification on numerous times.
Q. And what's the basis for that information?
A. I got it from various credible sources.
Q. Name me one.
A. I don't remember offhand, but I could look them up.
Q. Now, similarly, do chiropractic, does the field of chiropractic - I'm having difficulty not saying chiropractic medicine because that's the way I'm used to referring to it - but in the field of chiropractic, are there recognized boards that do similar certifications for chiropractors?
A. The national associations and other, and other organizations, I'm not an expert on this, but they have certain fellows of this or that or diplomate of this or that. I honestly don't know the legal standing or the licensure standing of this. I don't know if it's more of an honorary degree, or if it's anything further.
Q. Well, let's talk, what I know about the board certification for medicine, it is not mandatory. Do you understand that?
Q. You understand you can be a doctor and never be, and practice medicine and never be board certified?
Q. You understand that board certification is basically a peer group evaluation of a practitioner's credentials?
A. If you say so.
Q. Don't you know that? You don't know that?
A. I don't get involved in the diplomate program in terms of, you know, we don't have that in chiropractic, generally, board certified stuff.
Q. There are board certifications in chiropractic, correct? I thought you just told me—
A. They have diplomates and fellows, they have diplomates. I Imagine it might be similar. You have to take, like, extra courses on weekends for maybe a year or two years. Sometimes there are a lot of prerequisites involved, some of them have less.
Q. And then there is a testing procedure by your peers?
A. I imagine so.
Q. And then
MR. TURNER: Objection. I just want to get on record, he said he doesn't know anything. All he's answering now is speculation.
MR. ORLOSKI: Everything else he's been answering is speculation.
MR. TURNER: This is speculation on a legal question.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. You're not, you are not certified or a diplomate in any specialized program in chiropractic, correct?
A. I became certified in what was known as spinal column stressoiogy in I think '86 or '87. And it was a course that dealt with spinal analysis.
Q. How about Dr. Homola, does he have a diplomate status in anything?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You are saying he's a self-hating chiropractor?
A. Seems like that to me.
Q. Because you are practicing different, under a different standard?
A. No. He seems to be against some of the basic foundation assumptions of the chiropractic profession.
Q. Okay. Which—give me one basic assumption he's against.
A. Oh, that all people should have their spines checked for subluxations, that spinal subiuxations can cause physical, mental, neurological, immunological disorders, affect nearly everybody's system, that spinal
Q. Wait, wait. You, did you just say immunological disorders?
Q. By subluxations?
Q. I understood what you said correctly?
Q. You believe that?
A. It's not a matter of believe.
Q. You believe this is an elementary principle of chiropractic?
A. I know it's so.
Q, Okay. What other, who else Dr. Homola disagrees with you?
A. You'd, I guess you'd have to review Dr. Homola to really get into it. I'm just giving the general principles of the little I know of his writings.
Q. Your newsletter also said, "Their modus operandi is to attack, threaten and start legal actions against those who don't share their bigotry." Do you remember, did you write that?
A. No, but it sounds right.
Q. You are saying you didn't write it?
A.I could have written it. I mean, I write quite a bit. It sounds like something I could write. If you have the newsietter...
MR. TURNER: He said he didn't remember it, but it sounds like something he would have written.
MR. ORLOSKI: No. It's one of these newsletters.
DR. BARRETT : I saw it today and copied it, so believe me, it's there.
MR. ORLOSKI: I want to show it to him. Modus operandi--
DR BARRETT: It was the e-mail version. I read it this morning and copied it. It probably wasn't that one that you have. (Witness reviewing document.)
Q. When you wrote that, who were you referring to?
A. Can you repeat what you said?
Q. "Their modus operandi is to attack, threaten and start legal actions against those who don't share their bigotry."
A. I assume it's the people that Tim Bolen had discussed.
Q. What is your relationship with Tim Bolen?
A. I like what he writes.
Q. And you don't know if he's a male Tim or female Tim?
A. I have no Idea. He might be both; you can never tell in this world.
DR. BARRETT: Especially in California.
DR. KOREN: Especially in California, yes.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Who, what do you mean, don't share their bigotry? What type of bigotry are you referring to?
A. Their intolerance for nonmedical approaches to health and disease.
Q. So you're saying if you don't accept chiropractic, you're a bigot?
Q. Can you, can you not accept chiropractic and not be a bigot?
A. I subscribe to freedom of choice and freedom of speech and thoughts.
Q. Can you please tell me your views on vaccinations?
A. I believe in freedom of choice. I don't believe that any course of medical procedure, unless done in extreme circumstances is necessary, without a person's prior approval.
Q. Tell me about child vaccination.
A. I think I answered that question. People should not be forced to have a medical procedure unless they are given full disclosure of information and have their choice to say no, unless it's an absolute emergency when people cannot be reached in time and life and death is at stake.
Q. Are you saying children should never be vaccinated until they're adults, is that what you just said?
A. Parents have a legal responsibility for their children, so you know, that what I said relates to, of course, the parents. A newborn baby can't make a decision, but the parents, of course, have to make the decision for the baby.
Q. Okay. So you do accept that valid premise that parents can validly exercise the option of vaccination for the child?
A. Can what?
Q. Can validly—
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Validly -
A. It's the accent that threw me. Validly.
Q.—validly opt to vaccinate a child, even though the fact that the child does not make the, give consent is irrelevant?
A. Well, it has to be, because they vaccinate babies shortly after birth.
Q. But you're not against that premise?
A. I'm against all unscientific procedures done that have not been proven to be safe or effective. But I realize that people have a freedom of choice. Parents should be permitted to say yes or no to their children's - you know, to make their own decisions based on good Information, and there shouldn't be any coercion, that people should not be forced to do a certain medical procedure and penalized If they refuse to do a certain medical procedure if they feel it's in the best interest of themselves or their family, that other options are available, or no options. It's a person's right, because they own their bodies, not the state.
Q. Do you set yourself up as an arbiter for deciding whether or not the governmental authorizations for vaccination are proper or improper?
A. What do you mean by arbiter? I'm just a small town kind of guy. I don't use that word.
Q. I mean, you understand all vaccinations, the only vaccinations that would be lawfully done would be vaccinations where the government has signed off and said the vaccination is an effective procedure? You understand that?
A. I believe that, I understand that the government has mandated, the government recommends vaccinations, and the states mandate those vaccinations based on the government recommendations, the federal government recommendations.
Q. And the federal government does scientific testing to determine whether or not the vaccination is safe and efficacious?
A. No. That's not true. Federal government doesn't do any scientific work at all. FDA purely relies on the research done by usually the pharmaceutical companies.
Q. They oversee what they do?
A. They review their raw data and find it, they, actually, they review their findings. They do not oversee the research.
Q. Then they sign off, they make a determination as to whether or not that was accurate?
A. Various government committees will review the information that the pharmaceuticals and others provide and determine whether or not the vaccine is safe and effective.
Q. Do you think you have greater scientific expertise in the field of vaccinations than those in the FDA charged with the oversight of the scientific test?
A. I don't know those people. I can only see what they write and study the research and decide whether or not their opinions are consistent with their statements.
Q. So you think you are in a position to evaluate their work product?
A. I think every citizen's obligation is to not take the government or any organization at face value, but to look for themselves and look at both sides of the story. The government has been wrong, the medical profession has been wrong numerous times and later retracted earlier statements, and there were those who have been critical who were first looked upon as quacks and crazies, and they're later found out to be accurate. So I think it's incumbent upon all of us to question and read and learn.
Q. Do you have the scientific expertise to do that, you personally?
A. Well, in the field of vaccination?
A. The field of vaccination is terribly complex. I don't think anyone person has the expertise to evaluate vaccination properly, because you're looking at fields as diverse as immunology, epidemiology, politics, conflict of Interest, long-range studies. There is, so what researchers have to do is look at all the data from the different fields and find out if it's accurate, or if it's lacking and if there is sufficient proof to warrant their conclusions. Especially the raw data is very important. And that sometimes takes a good expertise in statistics, which I don't have, and I rely on others often to do the statistical analysis.
Q. So if I understand what you just said, you agree with me that, then, that you do not have the scientific expertise to decide whether or not a particular vaccination product is safe and efficacious?
Q. I have the ability to make a decision based on what I consider to be logical and scientific reasons. The government apparently doesn't feel that anyone person does. That's why they have committees made up of many people from many fields. So to say do I by myself have all the knowledge that many of the sources I use have, of course not. That's why I use these as sources. If an epidemiologist comes up with a study and it says something, obviously I'm not an epidemiologist, but I can read the study, I can compare it to other studies, I can see, if I talk to other epidemiologists, see if the work is valid or if it has been done improperly. A lot of science is really poorly done. There is a lot of material in the medical journals that don't really meet the qualifications of good science. And yet, there is a lot of decisions based on poor science.
Q. Your degree, you have a, your degree is a Bachelor's of Arts in communication, correct?
Q, And the D.C., doctor of chiropractic?
Q. Do you consider that a scientific degree?
A. It could be.
Q. Do you consider it, your D.C., a scientific degree?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. ORLOSKI: Let me just confer with my client. I think I'm probably done. (A brief recess was taken.)
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Just a couple more.
A. Oh, good. Thank you.
Q. Prior to using the terminology that Dr. Barrett is delicensed, did you know that Dr. Barrett sued Bolen in California for that exact claim?
Q. Did you know that Dr. Barrett's, that Bolen's claim that Dr. Barrett was de-licensed was picked up by a doctor in Illinois where suit was filed against that doctor and the court ruled that using delicensed is a term which means involuntary termination of the medical license, and if not true, it is defamatory? Did you know that?
A. No, I did not.
Q. For this lawsuit, do you have the benefit of insurance coverage?
Q. Do you have the benefit of any outside help, like this health council?
Q. Can you tell me who you intend to call as witnesses in this matter?
A. No, not at all.
Q. No witnesses?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, we are entitled to know what witnesses so we can—
A. I 'm sure once we decide on them, I'll be happy to tell you if you're supposed to know. But right now, we haven't decided on anybody.
Q. Have you talked to anybody about appearing as witnesses on your behalf?
A. I have not, no.
Q. Have you talked to Tim Bolen about appearing as a witness on your behalf?
A. No, I have not.
A. It's a good Idea; you never know.
Q. Bring him up; I'd like to talk to him.
A. I'm sure he will be happy to say hi.
Q. So at this juncture, you have no witnesses other than you in this matter that you intend to call?
A. At this moment, I can't really answer your question, because I don't know. We haven't really given it that kind of thought.
Q. Well, the answer, then, is, right now you don't have any?
Q. If you have any you want to call, let me know, because I want to take their depositions.
Q. But if you don't have any, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. If you're going to change your mind later, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. But I need to know right now.
A. I have no one named to give you.
Q. No, not a single name of a potential witness that you're going to call on your behalf?
A. At this moment, I can't think of anybody.
Q. And let me talk to the lawyer.
MR. ORLOSKI: I want to give him the opportunity to go through his Dr. Barrett file and say what false things Dr. Barrett said about him. How are we going to do that?
MR. TURNER: How what?
MR. ORLOSKI: You want to recall him for that purpose if he doesn't have it today? If he needs time to study, how were
MR. TURNER: We can do that. And yeah, that's fine. And we can also provide it to you.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. So why, what I'll do is, I'll just keep it on the front burner. I won't go and reschedule him right away. Get back to me when you can make it up again. If you can give me a list of all the sites on the Internet that I can look at, that would be useful. (Discussion was held off the record.)
By MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. I thought you had a Dr. Barrett file.
A.I, I said I may have it. I don't, I may not have that information in it if I do have one. I honestly don't remember. I remember putting stuff in an envelope, I think it was all the papers relative to this kind of thing.
Q.Well, we want to know, I want to give you the opportunity, you are saying Dr. Barrett said false things about you.
A. Misleading things.
Q. We want to give you the opportunity to explain those misleading things. The only thing you've identified so far is whatever he wrote about the way the FTC investigation ended.
Q. You said he spoke to you. You also told me he had spoken to you, you called him about that. Is that accurate? You had communicated in some way about that?
DR BARRETT: That was by e-mail.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. Do you remember communicating with him about it?
A. Yes. I told him he was wrong.
Q. You asked him to change it.
A. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I did inform him it was incorrect.
Q. And he corrected it pursuant to your request?
A. I don't know, because I haven't checked his site. I don't know what he wrote.
Q. He said he corrected, Dr. Barrett will testify that pursuant to your request, he spoke to the FTC, he called your lawyer, your lawyer did not return his call—
DR BARRETT: No. I e-mailed him.
BY MR. ORLOSKI:
Q. He e-mailed the lawyer -
MR. TURNER: It was e-mailed asking for $10,000 payment, so...
DR BARRETT: Not you.
MR. TURNER: Yes. Me. It was. Absolutely. We have it, we are going to bring it in, show it, use it.
DR BARRETT: Put that in discovery.
MR. TURNER: I'll mail it to you. I'll mail it to you when I got back.
MR. ORLOSKI: You are going to answer our request for production of documents?
MR. TURNER: Would you give it to me again?
DR. BARRETT: Can we add it to the question one, which is referring to other--
MR. ORLOSKI: I thought I had them.
DR BARRETT:—false and misleading things I've said about him that he's referring to?
MR. TURNER: Yeah.
DR BARRETT: Thank you.
DR. KOREN: Sure, sure.
MR. ORLOSKI: I think I have them here.
DR BARRETT: You want the discovery questions? I have a set.
MR. ORLOSKI: Plaintiff's interrogatories. I want to make sure
I don't give my only copy away.
Here is the interrogatories. Here we go. There's a copy for him.
DR. KOREN: Thank you.
MR. ORLOSKI: I just gave them to him. This is the interrogatories, these are the requests. This is the two. That's what you want, and the two questions that I've asked. Okay. I think we are done. Let me just check with Dr. Barrett one more time. We are going to bring him back on this question about the falseness of Dr. Barrett's statements. (Discussion was held off the record.)
MR. ORLOSKI: For the record, we have an understanding that we will recall Dr. Koren to discuss - give him an opportunity to examine whatever he says Dr. Barrett said false about him
MR. TURNER: Okay.
MR. ORLOSKI:—and then we will recall him so he can articulate those falsehoods.
MR. TURNER: Okay.
MR. ORLOSKI: You're going to answer our request for production of documents when?
MR. TURNER: I hope to have them by Monday, try to get them out here soon.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. We are done, unless you have any questions.
MR. TURNER: No questions.
MR. ORLOSKI: Is there any interest, with all parties here, any interest for exploring settlement, which is just for, without the court reporter?
MR. TURNER: Say that again?
MR. ORLOSKI: With all four of us in the room at the same time, Dr. Barrett thinks that maybe this case can be resolved.
MR. TURNER: Well, I'm happy to stay and talk about that. We are always happy to listen to any offer.
MR. ORLOSKI: Okay. We'll let you go home.
MR. TURNER: Go ahead. He won't waive it now, we might waive it soon. We are not going to order a transcript yet. (Deposition concluded at 4:20 p.m.)
This page was revised on June 6, 2008.