Barrett has issued a misleading statement about his loss claiming he is going to file an Appeal.  He, Barrett, claims that the Judge was wrong because he, Barrett, feels because he originally demanded a retraction and Koren refused - that therefore Koren was somehow "acting with malice."  Barrett, we know, claimed in his testimony to be "a legal expert,"  drawing, I presume, on the things he learned from the legal "correspondence course" he took through the mails.

But Barrett just doesn't get it, frankly - for the Judge ruled on Barrett's "malice" claim also, finding that "since there was no defamation in the first place, there was no malice because Koren refused to retract his article."

 
Barrett's attorney, Richard Orloski, I've heard, took this case "on contingency," which would mean that he would get a percentage of the jury award, or any settlement.  Orloski walked away from this case empty-handed - after four years of work.  Orloski, I presume, had relied on Barrett's statements about himself - rather than completing his own research about Barrett before he took the case. 

In Orloski's situation - I think he got his own just desserts - for originally, when Koren was bringing Negrete into the case, Orloski tried to block Negrete from entering the case, claiming "Negrete didn't go to the right laws schools..." 

Click HERE to read the Press Release
 

Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate