Barrett Lawsuit Against Tim
Bolen Dies of Old Age in
Opinion by Consumer Advocate
September 23rd, 2009
always said that
Stephen Barrett, as a man, just wasn't much. Recently
he proved my point - in spades.
3rd, of the year 2000, this rancid old fart, and a couple of his equally
stunted cronies, filed a lawsuit against me, and others, sort of claiming
Tim Bolen, had been hired by world acclaimed author, and
Hulda Regehr Clark PhD to defame him, and that others
conspired to help me.
too long. They actually wrote this nonsense down.
is that, of course,
Stephen Barrett, et al, had no case
against any of us, so they NEVER tried to bring it into the Courtroom, offering, as
it were ,just about every lame excuse they could find to delay, delay,
delay. All the while, of course, Barrett claimed on his quackwatch website,
and Polevoy on his healthwatcher site, that they were, in fact, suing me,
blah, blah, blah.
What I found
amusing, right from the start, was when we demanded of Barrett and Grell
that they produce documents where any of the Defendants actually made
statements in the accusation reflected below - they could not provide any.
eight years and four months, on March 23, 2009, the latest Judge in the case,
Stephen Dombrink, Judge of the Superior Court, Alameda County, ordered the
Yup - he
Dismissed the case.
In simple street language,
Stephen Barrett and his buddies, in almost eight and a
half years, simply couldn't get it up.
I'm not surprised. Barrett's lawsuits are just about as good as his
writings. Maybe better. And, Polevoy is a joke - even in the
This is the
same case that
one of those
et al, accused of "conspiring...with me" challenged Barrett, and his
all the way to the California Supreme Court. You can read about that
here. She was dismissed from
the case early on and was awarded
over $500,000 in attorney fees.
of the Defendants, screwball
Terry Polevoy from Canada, still owes Ilena,
with interest accumulating,
about $350,000 and doesn't respond to legal demands. If you want a
good laugh, read my earlier article titled
"Quack buster" Bank Accounts, Property...".
was one point in the saga where Ilena almost seized quackwatch, you can read
about that by clicking
How this all
Why Barrett and Grell?
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.
September of 1999
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.
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.
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.
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
October of 1999, I entered the case, and began to investigate. What I
found pointed me at
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
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
short - Barrett and Grell didn't like me very much at that point. I'd
guess they like me even less now.
Well, what about
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
And the fun began...
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.
instance, there was this:
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.
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."
can read the whole article
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."
Tim Bolen - Consumer