Hulda Clark (Zapper scam) sued: Full text of court papers
Frank de Groot
RICHARD F. RESCHO (#108086)
IAN P. DILLON (#203612)
LAW OFFICES OF
CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL
The Broadlake Plaza
360 22nd Street, Suite 320
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 832-2980
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., TERRY POLEVOY, M.D., CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HULDA CLARK, TIM BOLEN, JAN BOLEN, JURIMED, DR. CLARK RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION, DAVID P. AMREIN, ILENA ROSENTHAL, AND DOES 1 TO 100.
Defendants.
) No.
)
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
) FOR LIBEL, LIBEL PER SE
) AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LIBEL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs allege:
1. Defendant HULDA CLARK, an individual, is an unlicensed naturopath who
resides in California and operates a clinic in California and Mexico. She
claims that all cancers and many other diseases are caused by "parasites,
toxins, and pollutants" and can be cured within a few days by administering
a low-voltage electric current, herbs, and other nonstandard modalities.
2. Defendants TIM and JAN BOLEN are individuals who reside in California and
do business as JURIMED, an entity whose purpose is to assist "alternative"
health practitioners faced with regulatory action, criminal prosecution, or
other matters that threaten their financial well-being and/or license to
practice.
3. Defendant Jurimed is a corporation with its principal place of business
located in California.
4. Defendant DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION is a corporation located and
doing business in California. Its stated object is "to validate Dr. Clark's
treatment protocol through research studies and ensure its application."
This Defendant does or has done the following:
(a) Provides news and other information about Hulda Clark and her
activities, including the publication of libelous statements involving this
lawsuit.
(b) Describes and promotes Dr. Clark's theories and methods.
(c) Sells, herbs, vitamins, devices, and other products used for
diagnosis and treatment based on Dr. Clark's theories.
(d) Sells instructional materials, including book's authored by Dr.
Clark and videotapes.
(e) Promotes and sells Dr. Clark's "New 21 Day Program for Advanced
Cancers" (current price - $1,732.75) and displays the phone number for
seeking treatment.
(f) Solicited funds to subsidize the defense when Hulda Clark was
prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in Indiana, as noted in
paragraph #16, below.
5. Defendant DAVID P. AMREIN is an individual who resides and does business
in California and/or Switzerland. He founded and is president of the Dr.
Clark Research Association, a California corporation, and operates its Web
site http://www.drclark.net. Notwithstanding Mr. Amrein's residence in
Switzerland, he has substantial contacts in California.
6. Defendant ILENA ROSENTHAL is an individual who resides in California,
directs the Humantics Foundation for Women, and is author of the
self-published book, "Breast Implants: The Myths, The Facts, The Women." She
also operates an Internet discussion group, alt.support.breast-implant, to
which she has posted more than 8,000 messages since the middle of 1999.
7. The true name and capacity of each Defendant sued herein as a Doe 1
through 100 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or others,
is unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues each such Defendant by a
fictitious Doe name. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
that each Defendant designated as a Doe was in some manner responsible for
the occurrences and the injuries to Plaintiffs as alleged in this complaint.
Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and
capacities of these Defendants as their names are ascertained.
8. Defendants TIM BOLEN and JAN BOLEN, individually, Jurimed, both
individually and on behalf of DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, HULDA CLARK,
DAVID P. AMREIN and ILENA ROSENTHAL and Does 1 thru 100, wrote numerous
letters, articles, messages, and/or published these letters, articles and
messages, on the internet and sent to numerous individuals starting on or
about November 7, 1999. The writings and publications were performed by or
on behalf of Defendants TIM BOLEN, JAN BOLEN, JURIMED, DR. CLARK RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION, HULDA CLARK, DAVID P. AMREIN and ILENA ROSENTHAL, all of whom
do business in the State of California, and Does 1 to 100 (hereinafter
referred to collectively as "Defendant Publishers" or "Defendants.")
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant
Publishers and Does 1 through 100 sent the internet postings and e-mails
attached as Exhibits 1 thru 14, to individuals around California, the United
States, Canada, and to people all over the world. (Exhibit A is an index of
Exhibit 1-15.)
10. At all relevant times, each Defendant conspired with each other
Defendant to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint.
11. At all relevant times, each Defendant knew all facts alleged in this
complaint to have been done by any other Defendant.
12. Plaintiff Stephen Barrett, M.D., a Pennsylvania resident, is a medical
journalist and consultant who has achieved national renown as a consumer
advocate. His Quackwatch Web site is a guide to health fraud, quackery, and
intelligent consumer decisions. He is also a board member of the National
Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a nonprofit consumer-protection
organization.
13. Plaintiff Terry Polevoy, M.D., is an American citizen who resides and
practices medicine in Canada. Like Dr. Barrett, he operates a large Web site
that exposes health frauds and quackery.
14. Plaintiff Christopher Grell is an attorney who resides and practices in
Oakland, California, and has a special interest in cases involving health
fraud or harm caused by herbal products. One of his clients is a former
patient of Hulda Clark who is suing Dr. Clark for fraud.
15. Plaintiffs Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are hereinafter referred to as
"Plaintiffs."
16. In September 1999, Hulda Clark was arrested in California, based on a
fugitive warrant from Indiana, where she faced charges of practicing
medicine without a license. The case originated in 1993 when Dr. Clark lived
and practiced in Indiana. Government documents and press reports indicate
that after a former patient complained to the Indiana attorney general, a
health department official, accompanied by a deputy attorney general,
visited her office and was diagnosed with AIDS and sent to a laboratory for
a blood test. Dr. Clark -- apparently tipped off by the lab -- found out she
was being investigated and left Indiana a few days later. In 1999, she was
apprehended in California and returned to Indiana to stand trial. In April
2000, an Indiana judge dismissed the charges on grounds that too much time
had elapsed between the filing of the charges and Dr. Clark's arrest.
17. Defendants TIM and JAN BOLEN refer to themselves as "publicists for Dr.
Clark." Various Internet postings indicate that on or about September 28,
1999, Dr. Clark's son, Geoffrey, hired Bolen and/or JuriMed to assist Dr.
Clark after she was arrested. Presumably acting as Dr. Clark's agent, Bolen
urged her followers to donate money for her defense and to send letters
protesting her prosecution. He also issued bulletins promoting Dr. Clark's
public appearances. The Dr. Clark Research Association Web site identifies
"Tim and Jan Bolen from JuriMed" as "Clark's media contacts" and displays
their phone number and e-mail address.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Libel)
18. On or about November 9, 1999, Defendant Publishers and Does 1 through
100, began maliciously distributing false, defamatory, and disparaging
messages about Plaintiffs. These messages, authored and published by
Defendants, were e-mailed to mailing lists, posted on Internet message
boards and news groups, posted to the Dr. Clark Research Association Web sit
e, and distributed through several other channels. These messages were
distributed from the e-mail addresses of Defendants. Some of these libelous
messages were republished by David Amrein on the Dr. Clark Research
Association Web site and/or distributed through the Defendant's electronic
newsletter. At least one was repeatedly posted to newsgroups by Ilena
Rosenthal. Some of these messages were also republished on other Web sites.
(Exhibits 1 through 14 are the writings Plaintiffs' presently know about
that are the subject of this claim. These writings are incorporated as if
set forth herein.)
19. Defendants have actively and aggressively distributed false and
defamatory information about Plaintiffs to thousands of individuals in
around the United States, including persons in the State of California,
Canada and around the world. The object of these activities is to destroy
the Plaintiffs' good reputation and to make them objects of ridicule,
hatred, and personal attack.
20. At various times, in various combinations, the Defendants conspired with
each other to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint.
21. Plaintiffs' ability to pursue their professional practices depend
entirely on their reputation for competence, credibility, and honesty. As
set forth in Exhibits 1 through 14, incorporated as if set forth herein, at
various times, the Defendants, deliberately, and with actual malice,
disseminated false, defamatory, and malicious statements to the effect that:
(a) Dr. Barrett is arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed,
professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest
journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun
for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged
in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report,
and other unspecified acts).
(b) Dr. Polevoy is dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed,
professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired
gun for vested interests, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy,
stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic
remarks.
(c) Attorney Grell is professionally incompetent and has filed a false
report with the FBI.
22. Plaintiffs learned about the first libelous writing on or about November
7, 1999 and learned of others subsequently.
23. Exhibits "1" through "14," attached to this complaint, provide true and
correct copies of the messages presently known, with some of them
accompanied by Plaintiffs' comments on their erroneous, libelous, and
derogatory passages.
24. The false, malicious, disparaging, and defamatory statements
disseminated by Defendants attack Dr. Barrett, Dr. Polevoy, Attorney Grell,
and/or "Quackbusters" in general, all of whom Defendants refer to as
"Quackpots."
25. The specific stated or implied derogations pertaining to Dr. Barrett
include:
(a) He has been de-licensed.
(b) He is deliberately misleading people by calling himself a doctor.
(c) He makes dubious claims about being a psychiatrist.
(d) He is incredibly arrogant and a dishonest journalist.
(e) He is the epitome of a streetcorner bully, an Internet thug.
(f) He maintains a "hit list" of "quacks". Only those whose works who
seriously frighten Barrett's sponsors make this list.
(g) He and his minions, falsely give the impression to law-enforcement
agencies that they have some standing in the medical community.
(h) He, his cronies, and his minions are not known to do intelligent
research.
(i) He was faced down by doctors at Johns Hopkins University when he tried
to quote from studies that did not exist.
(j) He was disqualified as an expert witness in New York last year.
(k) He does not research the people and protocols he criticizes. He
attacked Hulda Clark without even reading her books.
(l) He has "deep pockets" of money behind him.
(m) His income from assisting a foreign drug cartel could be as much as
one million dollars per year.
(n) He operates a "murderous attack organization."
(o) He is part of a conspiracy, a "propaganda enterprise, one part
crackpot, two parts evil."
(p) This "Quackbuster Conspiracy" started shortly after the American
Medical Association lost a court battle to chiropractors in 1976.
(q) He has violated a federal judge's injunction relating to the above
case. He waited until the judge died, because otherwise he could have been
imprisoned for violating the injunction.
(r) The AMA files, which somehow were allegedly wrong and improper, ended
up in his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
(s) He is an "extortionist" and "obfuscatory"; is committing crimes such
as extortion; and is a bully.
(t) His local police department and district attorney are investigating
him for extortion.
(u) Rumors say that he is in bad health.
(v) He brought and/or filed false criminal charges against an individual
known as Salvatore D'Onofrio. He convinced members of the Laguna Beach
Police Department that D'Onofrio was "a sex criminal preying on women." He
ruined D'Onofrio's life.
(w) Quackwatch is being sued by many doctors and health organizations in
the United States.
26. The specific stated or implied derogations pertaining to Dr.Polevoy
include:
(a) He is "pure fraud."
(b) He has falsely claimed to be a respected medical doctor.
(c) He is a "pimple doctor."
(d) He has had little scientific training.
(e) He engages in bombacity, lies, and misrepresentations.
(f) He believes that his medical license entitles him to engage in lies,
misrepresentations, and bad behavior.
(g) He has "deep pockets" of money behind him.
(h) "He is an embarrassment to the medical profession."
(i) His medical license should be revoked.
(j) He engages in malicious falsehoods.
(k) He has engaged in "anti-Semitic ravings" and a "virulent anti-Jewish
attack" directed toward a Dr, Horowitz, who filed a formal complaint with
the FBI's hate-crimes unit.
(l) He stalked Canadian radio producer Christine McPhee for months until
she "in fear for her safety" called in the police.
(m) Police reports show that Christine McPhee was not the only female
Polevoy stalked.
(n) His actions against McPhee and his "virulent attacks" against Hulda
Clark caused Clark Team One to arrange for security guards for her Canadian
appearance.
(o) He and another Canadian doctor developed a campaign of outright lies
and misrepresentations of the information delivered on McPhee's shows, which
caused her program to be canceled.
(p) To the trained ears of health professionals he sounds, and is,
ludicrous.
(q) His Web site is so virulent that it brings his mental state into
question.
(r) In his current mental state, he is a danger to the community.
(s) His "hate" Web site was so offensive, and he was so "out there," that
his Internet Service Provider permanently removed it on July 4, 2000.
(t) His Web site was shut down because it had become legally untenable for
the server; too many lawsuits had been generated for its hate information
and distortions of facts about people and medical issues.
(u) His current mental state is so dangerous to the Canadian community
that his medical license should be suspended pending outcome of an
investigation.
(v) His mental impairment is sufficient to justify investigating him for
violating eight provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code: (1)
practicing the profession while the member's ability is impaired; (2) having
a conflict of interest; (3) making a misrepresentation respecting a remedy,
treatment or device; (4) making a claim respecting the utility of a remedy,
treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as
reasonable professional opinion; (5) falsifying a record relating to the
member's practice; (6) signing or issuing, in the member's professional
capacity, a document that the member knows, or ought to know, is false or
misleading; (7) an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine
that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded
by members as disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional; and (8) conduct
unbecoming a physician.
(w) A criminal investigation of "Canadian Quackwatch's" subversive
activities should begin immediately.
27. The specific derogations involving Drs. Barrett and Polevoy as
"Quackbusters" include:
(a) Quackbusters should be referred to as "Quackpots."
(b) The most prominent characteristic of Quackpots is that "Each one of
them considers themselves to be experts on all facets of medicine."
(c) The main tactics the "Quackpots" use are intimidation, public mockery
and frivolous lawsuits.
(d) When you take a look at what Quackpots attack, it is easy to come to
the conclusion that there has to be some funding by some major
Pharmaceutical Companies, somewhere.
(e) Drs. Barrett and Polevoy are behind attacks on thousands of "dedicated
health humanitarians." "The attack comes from "bonded subversive groups
conspiratorially formed into attack units, and funded both directly, and
indirectly by the sleaziest elements of the pharmaceutical drug cartel."
(f) The "Quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda
enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It has declared war on
reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being
paid, directly and indirectly, by the "conventional" medical-industrial
complex.
(g) State medical boards are serving the needs of Quackbusters and their
paymasters.
(h) The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) should be regarded
as "minions of the medical establishment."
(i) NCAHF activities have deprived millions of Americans of first-rate
health care, causing unnecessary suffering and death.
(j) Quackbusters are being discredited all the time.
(k) The subversive "quackbuster" organization is participating in a civil
and criminal conspiracy to eliminate "Alternative medicine" from Canadian
broadcasting.
(l) Clark Team One is collecting information on Drs. Barrett, Polevoy and
others and is "thrilled" with what they have been getting.
(m) The book "Racketeering in Medicine" exposes improper NCAHF activities
in detail, except for who is funding "these people." Learning that would
require "a series of search warrants and a grand jury investigation."
(n) "Quackpot crazies" represented a sufficient threat to Hulda Clark's
safety when she spoke at a meeting in Canada in March 2000, that it was
necessary to have armed security present at the event.
28. The specific derogations involving Attorney Grell include:
(a) He is a courtroom dimwit.
(b) He filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Barrett in the wrong state.
(c) He filed a lawsuit against Hulda Clark in the wrong country.
(d) He is incompetent at writing lawsuits.
(e) He fits the profile of the "typical quackpot."
(f) He filed a false complaint against Hulda Clark with the FBI in San
Diego.
(g) The State Bar should hold a hearing to judge his competence.
29. In addition to the reckless disregard for the facts, Defendants'
writings show considerable evidence of malice. On or about April 29, 2000,
Defendant posted this message on eGroups and sent it privately to Dr.
Barrett: "Herr quackpot: With your usual intent to mislead, and mis-inform,
on behalf of your paymasters(?), you sent the following message allegedly
'permanently blocking' me from your list. What a joke! Who are you trying to
impress, 'has been?' Reichsmarshall, I'm not on your list - never have been,
and don't care to be. . . But Stevie boy, you're on mine... And, you won't
be off it until I hear the judge's gavel come down on your sentence, and I
see the Marshall's take you away in shackles. Of course, I'll have the media
present for that occasion."
30. Other messages displaying great malice include:
(a) "Hulda Clark's support team can, and is very eager, to kick the shit
out of the NAZI(s)? any day of the week. No empty threats here -- just the
facts of life."
(b) "The quackbusters need to be smacked hard."
(c) Quackbusters are sleazy.
(d) It is time to shut down the "Quackbusters."
(e) "No one, so far, has made the attackers [Quackbusters] bleed."
(f) I'm about to tell you . . . how you can help begin . . . the
destruction of the plotters."
(g) I suspect Polevoy wants to be the new supreme leader - when Barrett
goes out in the pine box."
31. Defendants are well aware that Plaintiffs regard their messages as
inaccurate and defamatory.
32. On April 30, 2000, Defendants posted a message to the Dr.Clark eGroup
recommending a book called "Racketeering in Medicine." Defendants allege
that it tells the story of NCAHF and is a very credible book. That same day,
Dr. Barrett warned Defendants that the book contained many false and
defamatory statements about him. Defendants replied: "I recommend Dr.
Carter's book to everyone, and, as I would hate to recommend a defamatory
book could you please give me the page numbers, paragraphs and sentences
that you consider to be lies?"
33. Even though Dr. Barrett provided the requested details, Defendants have
continued to recommend the book and to repeat some of its defamatory
contents. Defendants have also recommended another book from the same
publisher that contains similar defamations even though they have been
informed by Dr. Barrett, that Dr. Barrett sued the publisher and author and
obtained a settlement that included modification of the book.
34. On or about July 2, 2000, in response to complaints by Plaintiffs, the
Legal Department of eGroups determined that certain of Defendants' writings
violated eGroups' Terms of Service regarding abuse. An eGroups official
deleted these messages from the eGroups archive and warned Defendants that
if they posted another abusive message, they would be terminated from
membership in the Dr. Clark eGroup. Defendants did so anyway and, on August
14, 2000, Tim and Jan Bolen's account was terminated.
35. On or about August 14, 2000, Defendants began disseminating a message
accusing Dr. Polevoy of stalking women and urging "health activists . . .
from around the world" to file complaints to government officials, media
organizations, and regulatory agencies. The suggested actions were detailed
in sample messages and included:
(a) A complaint with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons about
Polevoy's activities. Bolen advised all to "Make sure you use the word
'stalking.'"
(b) An "Urgent" complaint to the Canadian Radio-Television
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) about the radio network taking
Christine McPhee off the air, allegedly, because of Polevoy's lies and
misrepresentations.
(c) Urging broadcasting officials and a member of Parliament to "see that
a criminal investigation of 'Canadian Quackwatch' subversive activities
begins immediately."
36. Shortly afterward, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal (aka "Ilene Rose")
republished the above messages to two Usenet newsgroups. Dr. Barrett
notified her that the messages contained false and defamatory information
about him and Dr. Polevoy and threatened suit if they were not withdrawn.
Instead of withdrawing them, she posted messages about Dr. Barrett's threat
accompanied by a copy of the libelous message. This posting and several of
her subsequent ones refer to Drs. Barrett and/or Polevoy as "Quacks." The
title of these messages contained the words "Sleasy 'Quackbuster' Scam." She
posted a total of 32 such messages to the newsgroups misc.health.alternative
and talk politics.medicine on August 14, 2000 and two such messages on
misc.health.alternative on August 18, 2000. Her post triggered 30 additional
responses with the same title, many of which were defamatory to Drs. Polevoy
and Barrett.
37. On June 28, 2000, Defendant Ilene Rosenthal posted a message to
misc.health.alternative referring to Dr. Barrett and falsely stating that
"there are bunches of $$$$ coming to him to run that PRO-AMA anti alt.med
website. PR pays well, and surely he takes in more than $25K per year."
38. On or about August 18, 2000, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal posted to the
newsgroup misc.health.alternative a copy of a message falsely stating that
"Quackwatch appears to be a power-hungry, misguided bunch of
pseudoscientific socialistic bigots"; is an "industry funded organization";
and is being sued by many doctors and health organizations.
39. On October 9, 2000, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal posted a message to
misc.health.alternative headed "Re: Quackbuster Barrett *is* a quack - by
his own definition." The message referred to Drs. Barrett and Polevoy as
quacks.
40. By August 25, 2000, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
received complaints from Defendants and nine other persons, several of whom
used Bolen's suggested text.
41. On or about September 24, 2000, Tim Bolen disseminated a message
stating: Barrett has the option to sue me in a court of law if he thinks
I've libeled him. HE HAS NOT DONE THAT. . . . He knows that if he goes into
the court system with me, It'll be the end of him. Barrett is afraid of me -
and rightfully so. . . . Because I'm making people THINK about what Barrett,
and company, are ACTUALLY DOING to the American public. I'm asking hard
questions -- questions whose time have come. Barrett, and his band of
bullies, don't want those questions asked, nor repeated. . . . As soon as
Barrett sues me I'll obtain his financial records in discovery, and I'll
publish the details. In fact I intend to write a book about his activities
from 1969 to the present. In the meantime, considering what I already know,
I'll stand by my statement - 'In my opinion - the conspirators are acting in
the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by."
42. On or about October 20, 2000, Defendants issued an e-mail report
addressed to "millions of health freedom fighters," which said, in part: I
want to again thank everyone for all of the information coming in. The
"quackpot" file is getting huge, and almost ungainly. Team members are
sorting and charting, and a new guidebook (first revision) outlining, and
detailing, the conspiracy is underway. Website coming soon.
43. Defendants' many publications present a mixture of statements intended
to make Plaintiffs an object of ridicule and to bring them public and
personal humiliation. The large number of factual errors, incorrect
speculations, innuendo, and out-and-out false statements contained in said
publications indicate that Defendants and those who republished Defendants'
statements failed to investigate the facts prior to publishing, and shows a
reckless disregard or concern for the truth of said statements.
44. The above-mentioned statements were published and republished
maliciously with the specific intent to harm the Plaintiffs and to advance
and protect the commercial activities of Defendants, Tim and Jan Bolen,
JuriMed, the Dr. Clark Research Association, and David Amrein.
45. Defendants, and each of them, and their officers, directors and managing
agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and
had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth
herein.
46. Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the libelous, fraudulent,
oppressive, and malicious acts of their "alternate entities", and each of
them, and each Defendants' officers, directors and managing agents
participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full
knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their "alternate
entities" as set forth herein.
47. The above-referenced conduct of said Defendants, their "alternate
entities," and each of them, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent,
outrageous and in conscious disregard and indifference to Plaintiffs'
rights. Plaintiffs, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said
Defendants, seek punitive damages according to proof.
48. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered the
injuries and damages previously alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their "alternate
entities," and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Libel Per Se)
49. Paragraphs 1-48 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
50. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs enjoyed good reputations
in the community and general public.
51. That the said statements made by Defendants are libelous on its face.
Said statements clearly expose Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, ridicule and
imply dishonest conduct.
52. The above-referenced conduct of said Defendants, their "alternate
entities," and each of them, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent,
outrageous and in conscious disregard and indifference to Plaintiffs'
rights. Plaintiffs, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said
Defendants, seek punitive damages according to proof.
53. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered the
injuries and damages previously alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their "alternate
entities," and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conspiracy)
54. Paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
55. On information and belief, Defendant Hulda Clark is using and promoting
the use of diagnostic devices and treatment methods that lack FDA approval
and would not be legal to market for their intended purposes within the
State of California or in interstate commerce.
56. On information and belief, Defendant Dr. Clark Research Association,
through its Web site and other channels; is marketing devices, herbs, and
other products; lack state or federal government approval for their intended
purposes; and would not be legal to market for their intended purposes
within the State of California or in interstate commerce.
57. On information and belief, Defendant Dr. Clark Research Association,
through its Web site and other channels, is promoting and marketing books
written by Hulda Clark and promoting and collecting payment for Dr. Clark's
services in Mexico. Information about this commercial activity is
incorporated herein as Exhibit "15."
58. At various times, in various combinations, the Defendants conspired with
each other to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint. The purposes
of this conspiracy have been to:
(a) Further the commercial interests of Defendants Hulda Clark, David
Amrein, the Dr. Clark Research Association, Tim and Jan Bolen, and JuriMed.
(b) Promote the reputations of each of the Defendants.
(c) Undermine and assassinate the character of their critics, including
the Plaintiffs.
(d) Share information with each other in furtherance of these goals.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their "alternate
entities," and each of them as follows:
1. For Plaintiffs' general damages according to proof;
2. For Plaintiffs' loss of income, wages and earning potential according
to proof;
3. For Plaintiffs' cost of suit herein;
4. For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper, including costs as provided in CCP §998, CCP §1032 and related
provisions of law.
DATED: November 3, 2000
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL
By_________________________________
Ian P. Dillon
Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1.. The Most Dangerous Woman in the World - Hulda Clark (press release)
2.. Hulda Clark Campaign in High Gear
3.. A good laugh for all ("Herr quackpot")
4.. Clark Update (May 12)
5.. Clark Update (May 20)
Plaintiffs' response and analysis to #5
6.. Clark Update - Into "Phase Two"
Plaintiffs' response and analysis to #6
7.. Most Dangerous Woman" Feted in Toronto
8.. Canadian Health Freedom Needs Our Help
Plaintiffs' response and analysis to #8
9.. Waterloo Regional Police report on Dr. Terry Polevoy
10.. Correspondence to and from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario
11.. Newsgroup postings of Ilena Rosenthal (aka "Ilena Rose")
12.. The Last Days of the Quackbusters
Plaintiffs' response and analysis to #12
13.. Health Freedom Wins a Big One
14.. The 'Quackbuster' Debate: Tim Bolen vs. Stephen Barrett, MD
Plaintiffs' response and analysis to #14
15.. Dr. Clark Research Association Web site promotions
Additional Information about Bolen ||| Quackwatch Home Page
This page was posted on January 18, 2001.
Jonathan R. Strong
>>snip<<
>
> IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
>
>
> STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., TERRY POLEVOY, M.D., CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL,
While this is probably a good thing, it's a shame that it has to be Stephen
Barrett pushing the case forward. If you'll recall, Barrett is the
personality behind "QuackWatch", a site that goes out of its way in an
attempt supposedly debunk fraudulent pseudo-medicine. While some of the
people and practices he attacks might be deserving of scorn, you'll also
find Ed McSweegan's diatribe about Lyme disease there as well. Barrett is
apparently one of those doctors who believes that Lyme is generally trivial,
easily diagnosed and easily treated. This has certainly made it impossible
for me to have a great deal of respect for Barrett and his judgment.
- Jon
Frank de Groot
I genrally don't like this kind of tactics I was employing.
Barrett really thinks Lyme is surrounded by quackery.
He would be very ashamed if he found out the truth about Lyme.
Of course people who promote 'zappers' etc. will give people like Barrett
food for their suspicions that Lyme is a crackpot disease,
and crackpot doctors are the only ones taking this disease seriously.
The answer to curing lyme is probably just chemical & thermal &
oxygen-related.
We know those approaches work, we are not exploring those avenues enough,
and
we know MD's have 'respect' for those approaches. The more we, as a group,
promote 'zappers' and homeopathy and chiropractics and voodoo, the more we
make ourselfs
look like people who's judgement one can't take seriously.
If we want the doctors to believe that we suffer from a serious disease, we
have to talk their
language. We have to respect their way of thinking. Their basics are right,
they just have no time,
not enough knowledge, to cure us. They are being fought by insurance co's.
But please, don't alienate them further by all this clear quackery.
If I were an insurance co, wanting to make this group look like a bunch of
malingering hypochondriacs,
I would post stuff about how 'this 5000$ zapper made me feel wonderful'. OK.
something that does
NOTHING (at least according to the doctors) makes you feel WONDERFUL???
So Lyme can't be THAT serious then!!.....
Please, if any quackery maks you feel better, keep it a secret, just like
the LLMD's names....
Frank
"Jonathan R. Strong" <j...@StrongGroup.com> wrote in message
news:GiGb8.45761$p5.74...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
<snip>
Bruno
"Frank de Groot" <franciscu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ULb8.5266$%m1.1...@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
> Yes, I took that into consideration.
Talking to yourself again, Frank?
Ethan
must pay the legal expenses of Clark and co. Clark and co were not
found guilty of any wrongdoing.
An explanation of what happened is available at:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/
Also there is the full text of the rulings there.
>
> Attorneys for Plaintiffs
>
>
> IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
>
>
> STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., TERRY POLEVOY, M.D., CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL,
>
> Plaintiffs,
>
> vs.
>
> HULDA CLARK, TIM BOLEN, JAN BOLEN, JURIMED, DR. CLARK RESEARCH
> ASSOCIATION, DAVID P. AMREIN, ILENA ROSENTHAL, AND DOES 1 TO 100.
>
> Defendants.
> ) No.
> )
> ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
> ) FOR LIBEL, LIBEL PER SE
> ) AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LIBEL
quoting from site:
JUDGE THROWS OUT LAWSUIT AGAINST ILENA ROSENTHAL
ORDERS BARRETT, POLEVOY & GRELL TO PAY HER ATTORNEY'S FEES
In another MAJOR victory for health freedom and Free Speech, the
Court in Oakland tossed out the lawsuit that Stephen Barrett, Terry
Polevoy and attorney Christopher Grell filed against ILENA ROSENTHAL.
This is a stunning, but not surprising, new development and defeat
for the Quackbusters. Judge Richman also ordered that Barrett,
Polevoy and attorney Christopher Grell pay for ILENA ROSENTHAL's
attorney's fees and costs in bringing her motion.
In his ruling Judge Richman found that Grell had no evidence of
wrongdoing on the part of Rosenthal and that Barrett and Polevoy
lacked prerequisite evidence. The motion brought by Ms. Rosenthal was
based on recently enacted California SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against
Public Participation) statute, which seeks to prevent lawsuits that
are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the
constitutional rights of free speech and petition for redress of
grievances." Judge Richman found that the Barrett/Polevoy/Grell
lawsuit was that type of lawsuit.
Frank de Groot
CHARGES DISMISSED IN HULDA CLARK CASE
In what was jubilant news for Hulda Regehr Clark, PhD.,
attorney Steve Dillon's office stated that the judge had granted
the defense Motion-to-Dismiss in the charges against Clark
for allegedly Practicing Medicine Without a License in Indiana.
The Motion to Dismiss" was based on the extreme length of time
that had elapsed since charges were first filed in June of 1993
and Dr. Clark found out about them when she was arrested
in San Diego, September, 20th 1999.
Frank de Groot
>called The Cure For Hiv and Aids by Dr. Hulda Clark.
See if you can get your money back from whoever/whatever sold you this
book.
Hulda Clark is perhaps the most notorious charlatan to have emerged in
recent
times. She even uses the methods of the generations of Quacks that preceded
her. The same useless machines are called out to do dis-service to mankind
in
another generation. Last year she was put on trial in Indiana (her home
state
I believe) for falsely diagnosing AIDS in a law enforcement officer and then
attempting to treat that condition. I am not sure of the outcome of that
trial, but I doubt that she prevailed.
> She says that the
>virus can be controlled by applications of cheap, mild electrotherapy
>from battery operated Zapper unit (5-9vts , along with 3 herbs to kill
>parasite infestations in thymus gland.
No benefit can be shown from the application of her zappers in HIV
infected
patients. There are some benefits to AC application but killing viruses is
not one of them. Her diagnosis of Parasites everywhere is one of the
hallmarks of her style.
> This was home treatment, not
>having to go to her Mexican clinic.
Just before she was arrested some of the workers in her clinic rewired
several of the machines that she used and she did not even notice the
difference. Her diagnostic methods were completely occult and her
treatments,
usually electrical or via some form of radio transmission were useless.
> There is also a portable battery
>operated magnetic pulser with applicator pad used to remove remnents of
>virus from glands by body application. See ads in Alternative Medicine
>magazine. The Bioelectrifier was another portable application unit for
>same purpose , but was low voltage AC output instead of pulsing DC.
There is no end to the plans for these devices. Last winter I
investigated
this area of alternate treatments. None of the principals in Hulda Clark's
area could show *any* benefit from their therapies. The Rife group that I
followed most closely could not even duplicate the one "kill" that they
could
demonstrate between the various 'experimenters' who were using similar
equipment. They eventually threw me out of their group because my standards
of
proof were bad for their little BUSINESS... and they were interested in the
bottom line and not the health of those they allegedly treated.
If you, or someone you know, is sick and the medical professionals do not
promise a good outcome, SAVE YOUR MONEY! These Zapper salesmen and the
various Ray therapies are only after what few coins you (or the one you care
for) have.
David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
Bruno
"Ethan" <etha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97d3fd6c.02021...@posting.google.com...
> This case was dismissed in
LMAO! What a jerk! Here you are, Frank, pontificating about how people who
practice medicine without a license are evil incarnate, yet you encourage
people to go to Mexico and procure drugs from some shady character in an
alley somewhere to treat Lyme. You also encourage people to illegally
circumvent the prescription drug laws and bribe veterinarians for drug
medications to treat themselves.
Now, try to comprehend this, Frank, although with your limited intelligence
I doubt that you will - by encouraging those people to illegally procure
potentially dangerous drugs, you are ALSO encouraging them to self-treat,
self-prescribe, and self-medicate. In other words, moron, you're encouraging
them to PRACTICE MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE! Can you understand that, you
pea-brain?!
Here you are giving advice to everyone regarding; symptoms, vitamins, drugs,
treatments, and it's all just shit you pull out of your ass. You try to pass
yourself off as some "expert" when in reality, Frank, you don't know what
the fuck you're talking about. Is that the way business is done over there
in Norway or is it because the Dutch are just a bunch of ignoramuses?
BTW, Frank, I hate insurance companies just as much as I hate you smug,
arrogant, know-nothing, America-hating Euro-trash. What a fucking maroon you
are! LOL!
Bruno
> You are right. Charges dismissed on a technicality.
>
> CHARGES DISMISSED
LMAO! What a jerk! Here you are, Frank, pontificating about how people who
Bruno
> > Also on a related note, there is a book available
> >called The Cure For Hiv and Aids by Dr. Hulda Clark.
>
> See if you can get your money
LMAO! What a jerk! Here you are, Frank, pontificating about how people who
Terry Polevoy
The court did not dismiss any action against Clark et. al.
The lawsuit has been moved to Federal Court and will begin shortly.
Why don't you wait until the real lawsuit begins?
etha...@hotmail.com (Ethan) wrote in message news:<97d3fd6c.02021...@posting.google.com>...
Ethan
> Wake up Ethan,
> The court did not dismiss any action against Clark et. al.
> The lawsuit has been moved to Federal Court and will begin shortly.
>
> Why don't you wait until the real lawsuit begins?
Ok terry... I am trying to keep up with the law stuff as best I can.
Clark has been sued more than once apparently. Which lawsuit has been
moved to federal court? Perhaps I am confused or mis-understanding
something. What I see is that clark won both lawsuits by barret and co
and also by Figueroa. Aren't those lawsuits now over?
my source -
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com
Ethan