Stephen Barrett Rip-Thrashed Once (Twice?) Again..

Wednesday June 2nd, 2010

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

I fully expected a battle royal in a San Diego Federal Courtroom this week with Stephen Barrett.  Barrett had sued Hulda Clark and Carlos Negrete, making some sort of claim or another (I find it hard to tell what Barrett's lawsuits are actually claiming).  I was a major witness scheduled to testify against him and I'd been preparing for weeks going over every piece of evidence I had ever gathered regarding Barrett's activities.  I fully expected to testify for a full day - maybe more.  And,  I had a lot to say.

I even bought a new tie for the occasion. 

But, this afternoon I found out that Barrett, today, came to Court apparently wanting to settle the case.  And Carlos Negrete, apparently in his infinite mercy, agreed to a settlement denying me the opportunity to walk all over Barrett wearing my golf shoes - so to speak..  Worse, Carlos won't even tell me the terms of the settlement.  He says it is confidential.

Carlos Negrete is, I guess, much nicer than I am when it comes to Barrett.

Hecky darn...

I have no idea why Barrett would have wanted to settle this case.  Maybe it is because he has never won one where I was involved and he is just plain sick of being humiliated.  That would make sense.

Certainly Barrett has to be reeling from his April 27th, 2010 loss to me in a California Appeals Court.  Barrett, and his attorney Grell, got pounded once again.  This time losing their Appeal of the Oakland Judge's Decision to Dismiss completely Barrett, Grell, and Polevoy's 9 1/2 year old case against me on the grounds that they simply never pursued the case.  The Appeals Court simply Affirmed the lower court's Decision.

That case, known as Barrett v Clark, but in one part known as Barrett v Rosenthal, due to Ilena Rosenthal filing an anti-SLAPP Motion, winning the Motion, the Plaintiffs Appealed all the way to the California Supreme court - and losing, of course.

Better, the Plaintiffs - Barrett, Grell, and Terry Polevoy got tagged for over a half million dollars in Rosenthal's attorney fees - and over $300,000, plus interest, has not yet been paid. You can read all about that situation by clicking here.

Ilena Rosenthal's attorneys are having a field day aggressively pursuing the owed money.  More, Terry Polevoy is suing Grell over the case claiming that he shouldn't have to pay, blah, blah, blah.  You can read all about that situation by clicking here.

Then too, there was the time Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson walked into a California courtroom to testify that Homeopathy was a bad thing, etc., got handed a non-suit Decision, and a Statement from the court (NCAHF v King Bio) that they were declared "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

I can see why Barrett would be a little depressed, and wants to crawl in a hole.

The case in the San Diego Federal Court was about Barrett complaining about a cross-complaint filed against him, and a few others, way back in September 2001.  The original case filed had charged Barrett, and others with:

1.                  UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES

2.                  VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 

3.                  INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE; 

4.                  NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE; 

5.                  CIVIL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS [RICO] 

6.                  MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 

7.                  ABUSE OF PROCESS 

8.                  NEGLIGENCE; 

9.                  CIVIL CONSPIRACY 

10.              INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

You can read the whole original cross-complaint case by clicking here, but perhaps the most revealing of the charges made in the cross-complaint can be found here, in this language:

" Cross-Complainant are informed and believe and thereon allege that Cross-Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct, through the ENTERPRISE, through a pattern of racketeering and illegal activity, and conspire to do so, and to wrongfully and unlawfully cause harm to Cross-Complainant and others, all to the detriment of Cross-Complainant and others. 

Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during the relevant times herein, Cross-Defendants, and each of them, conspired with one another to cause harm to Cross-Complainant, and others, by means of a complex pattern of individual transactions, threats, intimidation, illegal discrimination and coercion to carry out a common plan and scheme to defraud Cross-Complainant and others."

I remember when Hulda Clark decided to Dismiss this complaint.  Even though Clark and I were friends we argued over this - but, as she made clear - this complaint would take a lot of time and money she didn't have - and she wanted to focus on research.

However, then Barrett sued over the issue, and I got my second chance to stomp him.  But then Barrett settled the case.

Double hecky darn...

Oh well, there will be another time.  Barrett's been named twice now in a RICO action.  Maybe the third time is the charm?