(1)  Why Barrett and Grell?

It has been so long, frankly, it is hard to remember the details.  But, let me scratch my head for a minute, and try to get my memory cells working.

In September of 1999 Hulda Clark PhD was arrested in San Diego by the FBI, supposedly on a six-year old fugitive warrant claiming that Clark had been "practicing medicine without a license"  six years earlier in Indiana, while she was doing research for her book "The Cure for HIV/AIDS."  Clark had, from my memory, conducted an experiment on about thirty men in Indiana, where she was living at the time, who had tested positive, from a certified laboratory, for HIV.  After her experiment each and every of the men were sent for retesting at the same laboratory, and each and every of them tested negative for HIV.  According to official AIDS thinking that's not possible. 

Clark, then, who was in the process of moving to California, began to close up her offices in Indiana.

The State of Indiana is one of those places where, if you take a test for HIV, the laboratory is required to turn in the results to a State Agency. A "positive" test gets the person a visit from the State Agency, and the person goes on a registry, that, in effect, might as well put a public brand on their forehead - for everyone that person knows gets questioned and informed, including employers, neighbors, friends, newspaper reporters, etc.  In fact, soon the State will attempt to force the person into high dose chemo-type treatments.

So, it will come as no surprise to any of us that about thirty Indiana residents who previously tested "positive," for HIV, were suddenly in the State Agency's face, with an attorney, demanding that now that they had a "negative" test they be removed from the registry.  Wouldn't you?

Enter, from Stage Right - two Investigators from the State Agency, approaching Hulda Clark, wanting to know what she was doing.  The Investigator team, a man and woman, pretended that the man, supposedly the husband, was bi-sexual, and was worried about an assignation he had had with a homosexual man.  Clark sent them to get a test at the laboratory, and they went there and tried to get the lab to fake a test result.

Clark was in the process of moving to California and forgot about the visit.

Six years later the woman investigator was now married to a man she helped elect to the post of Brown County, Indiana Prosecutor.  Shortly after he was elected a warrant appeared, for Clark on the FBI NCIC computer claiming Clark was a fugitive.  More, the FBI Agent in San Diego told me that she was informed of Clark's whereabouts by a California attorney who was involved in a lawsuit against Clark.  The details of that early activity can be found by clicking here.

In October of 1999, I entered the case, and began to investigate.  What I found pointed me at Stephen Barrett and his cronies.  Why?  Barrett was soliciting lawsuits against Clark, using California attorney Christopher Grell, on his sleazy quackwatch website.  While in Indiana, at the early hearings involving the false charges against Clark (which were almost instantly dropped by the Court), Clark was served with a lawsuit (Figueroa v Clark) with Grell as the attorney.  Barrett, of course, got himself on the third paragraph of the article about Hulda Clark in the main Indianapolis newspaper.

Even though Barrett played up the accusations on his quackwatch website, the Figueroa v Clark case was a fiasco for Grell and Barrett, and (insert laughter here) caused them huge worldwide embarrassment.  Below is a snip from the article I wrote about what was happening at the time

"BUT THIS TIME BARRETT'S PLAN BACKFIRED...

The Figueroa vs. Clark case, originated by Barrett against health humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark PhD, ND took on ominous highlights for Barrett and Grell, after famed California civil litigator Carlos F. Negrete, took over for Clark.. Negrete instantly mounted an aggressive campaign, demanding IMMEDIATE presentation of evidence from Grell's office, backing their dubious claims against Clark.

Grell, attorney-wise, sort of a stumbling bumbler, was stunned by Negrete's assault - and could not provide any evidence. His answers to Negrete's court ordered questions were just an angry reiteration of the original poorly written lawsuit - all harangue, and feather-light on facts.

Grell, even before Negrete's arrival, was fumbling through the case. The last time I looked at the court docket, there had been eighteen (18) OSC/sanction hearings scheduled by the Judge against Grell. An OSC (Order to Show Cause) hearing can carry severe penalties for errant attorneys. Grell just simply wasn't doing what he was supposed to do in a timely manner - i.e.; proper performance in maintaining the case. The Judge, HIMSELF, forced Grell to drop FIVE defendants that weren't within the court's jurisdiction. Grell had also filed "proof of service" forms against FOUR MORE named defendants claiming that they "were served" at a private mail box company, although the owner of the business gave Grell a letter detailing the fact that he had never heard of these people, none of them were renting a mail box from him, nor had they ever rented a mail box from him.

It became obvious that there was, for all practical purposes, NO EVIDENCE. It was also obvious that attorney Grell had little, or no, substantive relationship with the alleged plaintiffs, Esther and Jose Figueroa.

Let's see - no plaintiff, no evidence, no defendants - hmmm? A hard case to win (sarcasm intended)..."

You can read the entire article, the one that went around the world like wildfire, detailing Barrett and Grell's huge humiliation, by clicking here..

In short - Barrett and Grell didn't like me very much at that point.  I'd guess they like me even less now.

(2) Why Polevoy:

Well, what about Terry Polevoy?  Why would he add himself on as Plaintiff?  Probably because I exposed his quackpot antics in much the same way.  In August of 2000 I sent out an instruction on how to file a Formal Complaint against Polevoy with the agency that controls his medical license - and I was very explicit about his activities.  You can read that Complaint by clicking here.

And the fun began...

I decided, of course, in the beginning, to find out all I could about the Plaintiffs.  And, I found out a lot. And, of course, I used the material where I saw fit - none of which seemed to endear me to the Plaintiffs. 

For instance, there was this:

"I've Finally Met Stephen Barrett...  And, I'm underwhelmed.

I was in Allentown, PA yesterday at a hearing where delicensed MD Stephen Barrett was testifying.  I was there to testify against him, as an "impeachment" witness, should it be necessary.  Barrett was trying to convince a three judge hearing panel that there is a conspiracy against him to defame him, and prevent him from continuing his so-called "anti-quackery" work.  Barrett's testimony was as pathetic as his personal appearance.

I find it difficult to accept that in our modern society, an adult male, claiming to be an industry professional, would show up in a legal hearing seven weeks beyond a haircut, and ten days beyond the last time he washed his hair."

You can read the whole article here.

In short, Stephen Barrett is a pint-sized blowhard, easily frustrated in his asinine attacks on health care advocates and providers.  Keep in mind that Barrett has been formally declared by the US Court system, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate

About Bolen Report	Contact	News	Library	Newsletter Signup	Search this site	Back to Home Page
Copyright 2005-2013 by Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group   |  All Rights Reserved