GORDON KEENE VELLA. - On Point News

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Psychological Association approved training program, and zero relevant research experience in the relevant field. (Barden Decl. 31.) o Dr. Brown claimed that the inclusion of “dissociative amnesia” in the DSM-IV provided evidence that the hypothesis of dissociative amnesia was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. However, he failed to note that the DSM-IV lists dissociative amnesia as a “pseudoneurological symptom” or conversion system – symptoms that have no genuine neurological or medical basis. Moreover, Dr. Brown wholly failed to inform the Court that “pseudoseizures” – a condition attributed to Plaintiff by Brown – is contained in the very same list of pseudonueorlogical symptoms. (Pope Decl. 47-58.) o Dr. Brown failed to disclose the number of times he has been disqualified to testify as an expert witness on the topic of dissociative amnesia. Prior to his testimony in the Vella case, Dr. Brown is known to have been excluded from testifying as an expert witness on the hypothesis of dissociative amnesia in State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford and State of New Hampshire v. Walters, 698 A.2d 1244 (N.H. 1997); State of New Hampshire vs. Phillip Bourgelais, Case No. 02-S-2834, Judge Tina Nadeau, April 4, 2005. See State of Rhode Island v. Quattrocchi, C.A. No. P92-3759 (R.I. 1999). (Barden Decl. 26.) o Dr. Brown failed to apprise the Court of the history of the movement associated with dissociative amnesia, including theories concerning international satanic cults and CIA mind control experiments. (Barden Decl. 35-40.) CONCLUSION Dr. Brown’s numerous and varied misrepresentations, taken together, demonstrate either an intentional attempt to mislead this Court on the issue of dissociative amnesia, or demonstrate a truly reckless presentation of the facts concerning the hypothesis. Dr. Brown engaged in wordsmithing to suggest an error rate, where none is recognized by the relevant scientific community. Dr. Brown inexplicably cited to numerous publications as supportive of dissociative amnesia, - 24 -
when many of those publications either directly refute the hypothesis or have to be taken so out of context as to render the “interpretation” disingenuous. Dr. Brown alleges a general consensus for the validity of dissociative amnesia while failing to address, or even mention, the dearth of scientific evidence opposing the hypothesis. Such misrepresentations and errors are more than sufficient to support the Defendant’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b). WHEREFORE, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and/or 60(b)(6), Vella respectfully requests that the Court provide relief from its May 1, 2007 judgment by amending that judgment or granting Vella a new trial. Dated this 9th day of October, 2007. GORDON KEENE VELLA, Defendant By: /s/Krista L. Kester Krista L. Kester, No. 19320 Allen M. Tate, No. 23246 WOODS & AITKEN LLP 301 South 13th Street, Suite 500 Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Telephone: (402) 437-8500 Fax: (402) 437-8558 krista@woodsaitken.com atate@woodsaitken.com - 25 -
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: eviews, and 7 books on different ar
Page 5 and 6: new trial under Rule 60(b)(3) upon
Page 7 and 8: Significantly, the court so held ev
Page 9 and 10: is presumed to have been aware of t
Page 11 and 12: [S]etting aside the question of whe
Page 13 and 14: Dr. Barden, “As a national expert
Page 15 and 16: subjects are asked if they recall h
Page 17 and 18: of “complete forgetting.” Nonet
Page 19 and 20: And the list continues. Dr. Brown m
Page 21 and 22: accurately it is akin to a land war
Page 23: which is mentioned by Dr. Brown in

GORDON KEENE VELLA. - On Point News

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?