>Subject: Re: Barrett & NCAHF
>From: "D. C. Sessions" [email protected]
>Date: 7/3/2003 8:42 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In <[email protected]>, Jan wrote:
>
>> http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/
>
>And this is apropos of exactly what?
>(Other than posting a spamblocked address, of course.)
Spam??
Close your eyes now, DC.
We wouldn't want you to take a real look at either sue happy Barrett or the
NCAHF.
Jan
Last Update: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:04 PM (Eastern Standard Time)
BREAKING NEWS!!!
FEDERAL JUDGE THROWS
OUT BARRETT LAWSUIT
DR. CLARK & CARLOS NEGRETE
READ FULL TEXT OF RULING
ADOBE PDF FORMAT THUMBNAIL
In yet another stunning victory for Health Freedom and against Stephen
Barrett, a Federal Judge in San Diego, California, hands down a ruling on June
20, 2003 dismissing the libel lawsuit filed by self-described "medical expert &
journalist" Stephen Barrett of the National Council Against Health Fraud.
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN
LANDMARK RULING
IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY -
BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!
READ FULL TEXT COURT OF APPEALS RULINGS
WORD FORMAT ADOBE PDF FORMAT
On April 22, 2003, the California Court of Appeals handed down a far
reaching landmark decision in favor of homeopathy and against the National
Council Against Health Fraud (Stephen Barrett, M.D.1 was one of the two main
self-described "expert" witnesses on the side of NCAHF).
NCAHF [which professes itself to be a "consumer watchdog" against what
it calls as health "quackery"] filed a lawsuit on February 16, 2001, as a
representative of California Consumers, against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and its president Dr. Frank J. King, Jr., N.D., D.C., a leading manufacturer
and distributor of homeopathic products.
The lawsuit accused Dr. King and King Bio of false and misleading
advertisement and unfair competition under the California Business &
Professions Code. It was the first case of this type to go all the way to trial
with respect to homeopathy. In the lawsuit, Barrett and NCAHF challenged
homeopathy by proceeding on the theory that there is no scientific basis for
the advertised efficacy of King Bio’s products and the King Bio’s products
were "drugs."
Dr. King has been an active contributor to the national chiropractic
community since 1979. He is the Founder and President of King Bio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a registered homeopathic manufacturing company dedicated
to the research, development, promotion and education of the many benefits of
homeopathy. Dr. King is also a member of the prestigious Homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). The HPCUS works directly
with the FDA as a governing authority of homeopathy in the United States.
For more information on King Bio and Dr. Frank King, you can refer to
www.kingbio.com .
Barrett and NCAHF are outspoken critics of homeopathic medicine calling
it "worthless" and unproven. Barrett has recently launched a web site to
publicly discredit homeopathy. See
www.homeowatch.org . Despite Barrett’s
dubious claims against homeopathy, he has no formal training or scientific
expertise in the science of homeopathy.
King Bio, like many other homeopathic and supplement companies targeted
by NCAHF in similar lawsuits, refused to capitulate to any sort of settlement
with Barrett and NCAHF. Instead, Dr. King decided to take the lead and defend
his own integrity and that of his company by deciding to "have his day in
court" and taking the case to trail.
The trial took place on October, 2001 in Los Angeles, California. The
Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Carlos F. Negrete provided support and
assistance for the trial.
Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was
revealed that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even
conducted any sort of scientific study. Something which Barrett and NCAHF have
steadfastly argued should be performed by all supplement manufacturers and
alternative therapists if they are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and
Barrett.
After NCAHF presented its case with little or no real evidence, Dr.
King’s attorneys requested that the court end the case and rule in its favor.
The trial court sided with Dr. King and awarded a judgment in favor of King Bio
and Dr. King. NCAHF’s case was so weak and lacking of evidence that Dr. King
and King Bio did not even have to present it full case in defense before the
judge ruled.
Despite the overwhelming defeat at trial, NCAHF decided to challenge
the judge’s decision and filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in
California.
During the appeal process, NCAHF’s attorney, Morse Mehrban, was
joined by another purported "consumer watchdog" attorney who fights against
alternative therapies and supplements, Mark Boling, on behalf of a little known
organization called Consumer Justice Center ("CJC"). CJC filed a "friend of the
court brief" in support of NCAHF’s appeal.
NCAHF and CJC argued that the trial court was wrong and that existing
law should be changed to allow plaintiffs, such as NCAHF, to bring lawsuits
with little or no evidence against a targeted company and, thereafter, force
the targeted company to defend itself on the basis of an accusation alone. The
Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or
logical.
The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete represented Dr. King and King Bio
in the appeal and argued that the trial court correctly found in favor of Dr.
King and King Bio and that it was not proper under California law or the United
States Constitution that a plaintiff, such as NCAHF, could irresponsibly file a
lawsuit without any evidence against a product and its manufacturer. Negrete
argued that it would be irresponsible and against free enterprise to allow an
individual to file a lawsuit without any evidence of wrongdoing with just a
couple of hundred dollars in a filing fee, thereby subjecting a victim
defendant to spend as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense
costs. All because someone could point their finger at what they did not
understand or believe in.
In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF "presented no evidence that
King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general
attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience
with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of
credibility"
And, in an more remarkable validation, the Court of Appeals ordered
that their Opinion be "published" as a precedent setting case in the official
reports of the State of California. This is the first opinion of its kind as to
homeopathy and the issues raised during the appeal. It will undoubtedly be
discussed by many legal scholars and cited in cases to follow in the future.
The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete congratulates Dr. Frank King, Jr.
for his efforts, dedication and perseverance in defending the advancement
homeopathy and alternative therapies and it is proud to have participated in
yet another case defending health freedom.
______________________
1. Stephen Barrett, even though he still uses the professional title
"Dr.," surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. He has not practiced
medicine since that time. Barrett operates the web site known as
www.quackwatch.com ,
www.homeowatch.org and
www.ncahf.com .
For a full text of the Opinion in Word Format or Adobe format, click
below.
WORD FORMAT ADOBE PDF FORMAT
SHERRELL JUDGMENT HERE (pdf file)
THUMBNAILS OF JUDGMENT
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST BARRETT
HANDS DARLENE SHERRELL A MAJOR VICTORY
ANTI-FLUORIDATION MILESTONE
HEALTH FREEDOM LEGAL DEFENSE COUNCIL
TALLY YET ANOTHER QUACKBUSTER WIN!!!
In yet another MAJOR VICTORY for the Anti-Fluoride Movement and a setback
for Stephen Barrett (self-described "expert" on "quackery"), a Federal Court
Judge in Eugene, Oregon, has ruled that Barrett could not prove his case
against well known anti-fluoridation advocate, Darlene Sherrell.
Barrett file his lawsuit against Darlene Sherrell in 1999 demanding
$100,000 in "damages" for alleged defamation and sought an injunction against
Sherrell for posting information about Barrett on her web site (
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride).
Darlene Sherrell is a well known independent researcher and expert on the
dangers of excessive daily intake of fluoride in human beings leading to
chronic fluoride poisoning. Barrett is a prominent national activist who
advocates the "safety" of fluoridation in drinking water. Sherrell testified
that she believed that Barrett was a "virtual lobbyist" for medical doctors,
drug, chemical and food companies.
Barrett operates a website (
www.quackwatch.com ) that attacks dozens of
findings by independent researchers and alternative therapists, including
chiropractors, as being "quacks." Among his attacks are challenges to the
anti-fluoridation movement.
Barrett was a medical doctor who gave up his license to practice medicine
in 1991 and has not practiced medicine ever since.
The was Barrett's first trial for defamation. This, even though he has
managed to obtain settlements from other individuals that he has targeted in
similar lawsuits.
The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Health Freedom Legal Defense
Council agreed to accept Darlene Sherrell's case in order to give a voice to
the anti-fluoridation movement and defend Sherrell.
Background:
In the summer of 1998, Darlene Sherrell, challenged Barrett to come forward
to name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoride levels in drinking
water and the effect excessive daily intake of fluoride as a possible cause to
chronic fluoride poisoning. At the time, in response to Sherrell's challenge
Barrett was "careful to state that he is and was aware of hundreds of studies
pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking water..." However,
"...He did not testify that any study demonstrates the safety of current
fluoridation levels..." Barrett had rebuked Sherrell's continuous challenges
and sent a message to her stating that she (Sherrell) was "delusional."
On November 5, 2002, after a trial in October, 2002, Federal Judge Michael
R. Hogan ruled in favor of Sherrell and against Barrett. He ordered the case
dismissed.
The full ruling can be read here .
Before the trial, Barrett's defamation case against Sherrell had been
languishing in the court for years awaiting trial. Trial was finally set for
June, 2002.
Two weeks before trial, Sherrell engaged the Law Offices of Carlos F.
Negrete and the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council based upon their
experience with defending cases that had been filed by Barrett previously and
their commitment to health freedom and environmental issues.
Darlene Sherrell was convinced of the correctness of her findings and
public statements. She refused to settle with Barrett and pay any money to him
or even remove the information about the dangers of Fluoride poisoning on her
website. Instead, she was committed to having her "day in court" on the
fluoridation issues and vigorously defend what she believes to have been
bullying tactics of Barrett.
We congratulate Darlene Sherrell for her courage, conviction and commitment
to advocating information about the dangers of chronic food poisoning.
Health Freedom Legal Defense Council and the Law Offices of Carlos F.
Negrete are dedicated to representing individuals and organizations that share
similar beliefs in health freedom and prevention of toxic contamination.
FIGUEROA LAWSUIT AGAINST DR. HULDA CLARK
DISMISSED BY SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
In yet ANOTHER MAJOR VICTORY for Dr. Hulda Clark and the health
freedom movement, San Francisco Superior Court Judge David A. Garcia DISMISSED
a lawsuit filed on September 10, 1999 against Dr. Clark by Esther Figueroa and
Jose Figueroa of New York.
The dismissal, which has been touted by Quackbuster and Stephen
Barrett's Quackwatch web site comes as a MAJOR SETBACK and STUNNING DEFEAT to
anti-health freedom forces and marks the culmination of months of Dr. Clark's
defense of false charges.
The case, which languished for months, was vigorously defended by Dr.
Clark, who denied all of the charges. Earlier this year, the same Judge sided
with Dr. Clark in finding that the Figueroa case against her had no "no
reasonable possibility of prevailing" and ordered the Figueroas to post a
$20,000 bond if they wanted to continue the case. The Figueroas failed to
posted the court ordered bond.
Shortly after the Figueroas were ordered to post a bond, their
attorney, Christopher Grell, withdrew from the case leaving the Figueroas
representing themselves in the case. Christopher Grell thereafter filed a
personal lawsuit against Dr. Clark in Oakland. The Court in Oakland has
already commented that his (Christopher Grell's) case has little merit.
Attorney Grell has recently been sued, among other things, for Racketeering by
New Century Press (publisher of Dr. Clark's books).
Once again, Dr. Clark has been vindicated.
Dr. Clark was represented by the LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE
(HEALTH FREEDOM LAW).
Dr. Clark thanks all of the people that supported her during these past
years and assures all that her vital work will continue.
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.
Health Freedom Law applauds Ilena Rosenthal for her courage and
determination and congratulates Attorney Mark Goldowitz of the CALIFORNIA
ANTI-SLAPP PROJECT for his work in this case. We thank the both of you.
Full text of the ruling can be viewed by clicking Ilena Rosenthal Ruling on
left panel or by clicking HERE.
NEW CENTURY PRESS FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST QUACKBUSTERS
Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete
After months of being subjected to Quackbuster predatory and menacing
attacks, NEW CENTURY PRESS (the company that publishes the books and materials
of Dr. Hulda Clark) filed a lawsuit against Stephen Barrett, M.D.,
Quackwatch.com, National Council Against Health Fraud and many other
self-described "Quackbusters."
The lawsuit comes within days of the court ordered reopening of the Century
Nutrition Clinic in Mexico.
To view the lawsuit, click Barrett vs. Clark on the left column or click
here (ADOBE FORMAT). To view the lawsuit in HTML format, click here.
This lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by New Century Press.
Mexican Federal Judge Orders Century Nutrition Clinic Reopened
In another important development, a Mexican Federal Court in Tijuana,
Mexico, has ordered the reopening of the the Century Nutrition Clinic pending a
full trial on the charges imposed by the Health Department in Mexicali, Mexico
(almost 100 miles away from Tijuana).
The Court sided with Century Nutrition's lawsuit asking that it be able to
open pending a full trial on disputed charges of violations. Since the
unannounced closure of the clinic last February 16, 2001, Century Nutrition has
vigorously denied any charges of impropriety and has filed two lawsuits, in
Mexico, against the Health Department and its officials.
Century Nutrition refused to pay fines to the Health Department that it
maintained were unwarranted, excessive and unconstitutional.
The Court action has been heralded as a milestone in alternative medicine
law in Mexico and is the first of its kind in this court. As with her cutting
edge discoveries, Dr. Clark's legal team is providing breakthroughs in health
freedom law in this country.
The clinic will soon be fully functional providing much needed services to
Dr. Clark enthusiasts and supporters.
Dr. Clark and her legal team deliver another victory for health freedom.
More news to follow.... This story is developing.
Stephen Barrett, M.D. Dismisses Libel Lawsuit against Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O.
Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete
Longtime critic and foe of alternative medicine, Stephen Barrett,
M.D., has asked the Court in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, to dismiss the libel
lawsuit that he filed against Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O.
The lawsuit stemmed from allegations that Barrett was defamed by
internet postings by Tim Bolen. Barrett alleged that Dr. Mercola was
responsible for defamation and "damage to reputation" because he had posted Tim
Bolen's editorial and opinion comments on
http://www.mercola.com .
Soon after the lawsuit was filed, Dr. Mercola engaged the LAW OFFICES
OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE along with THE HEALTH FREEDOM LEGAL DEFENSE COUNCIL to act
as his lead attorneys in the defense of the case. Along with local
Pennsylvania counsel, Dr. Mercola filed objections to Barrett's lawsuit.
The hearing on the objections was set for June 26, 2001. The
dismissal was announced only one day prior to the Court hearing. Barrett's
counsel had submitted the request for dismissal a few days prior to the
disclosure.
To view the documents, click on Barrett vs. Mercola on left window or
here.
Alternative Medicine & Health Freedom Related Legal Cases
Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete
This web site contains several cases that are being litigated in different
parts of the country relating to health freedom issues and alternative
medicine. Several of the cases reported on this site involve Dr. Hulda Clark
and Century Nutrition. However, there are other cases reported that concern
lawsuits filed by Dr. Stephen Barrett and other opponents of alternative
medicine.
Dr. Clark has taken a leading role in the crusade against those who want to
challenge an individual's right to make well-reasoned intelligent choices as to
whether he/she elects alternative medicine versus traditional medicine as a
therapy for their wellness or ailments. It is our opinion that each individual
has the fundamental right to elect the nutrients and therapies that they have
determined best meets their own personal research, investigation, beliefs,
philosophies, metabolism, religious concerns and well-being.
The cases reported in this web site involve several disputes between
advocates of differing viewpoints on the traditions of alternative medicine and
health choice. You are invited to review the information and documents
contained in this site and make you own determinations and conclusions.
It is the phenomenal growth of alternative therapies that has energized a
spirited discussion of the efficacy of alternative medicine. Unfortunately,
there are those traditional medicine advocates that believe that they "know
better" and would like to block the growing popularity of natural healing
methods. They seem to want to ridicule alternative medicine and stop the free
flow of information spreading through the internet. These heresyphobics engage
in constant tactics to discredit what they do not understand with the same
reckless abandonment of a drive-by shooter. One can only speculate as to their
true motives and ask: What are they afraid of? Is it that perhaps alternative
medicine works and people ARE really being cured?
Quite frankly, if they don't like the natural products that we decide to
incorporate in our health regimen, then just leave us alone. They can keep
popping Prozac to alleviate their patronizing anguish over us and turn to
radiation when their bodies succumb to cancer. Cancers that were caused by the
toxins that they deny even exist.
These self-appointed "medical experts" fail to recognize that natural
healing, and the methods used by alternative treatment advocates, has a longer
and more established history than does mainstream allopathic medicine.
I am reminded of an HMO case that went to trial several years ago. In that
case, one of the directors of the HMO testified that he followed the "golden
rule" when it came to which treatments the HMO would accept and pay for. When
asked what the "golden rule" meant, he testified that "he who owns the gold
RULES." Yes, the opponents of alternative medicine are better funded and
equipped to challenge the health freedom movement. Fortunately, they may have
the bucks, but our numbers are growing. At some point, the big lie will get
out and then people will start realizing who is killing whom.
We, on the other hand, are committed to allowing the public to receive all
of the information available in order to allow them to decide for themselves
what is best for their bodies.
If the battle for health freedom must be fought in a court of law, then so
be it. The alternative therapy community is ready to stand by its knowledge
and established modalities against narrow-minded medical militants.
Information Contained in this Site
Unless otherwise stated, the information and documents contained in this
site are actual court proceedings, events and/or the actual court filings or
documents that are substantially similar to the originals that have been filed
with the respective courts or governmental entities.
Adobe Acrobat Documents
In order to view some of the documents in this site, you will need Adobe
Acrobat Reader since many of the documents are in .pdf file format. If you do
not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it for FREE at
www.adobe.com or
Get Acrobat Reader.
Having Problems Opening Acrobat Document?
For those of you who are experiencing problems opening the Acrobat (PDF)
documents or have a slow modem (28.8 or less), we have also included an HTML
document that is the same as the Acrobat document. However, when the PDF
documents are converted to HTML the original formatting is lost even though the
text is the same.
BACK to Home Page
Disclaimer
Please read the Legal Notice & Disclaimer concerning this web page and all
other pages on this web site.
Comments
All feedback or comments are welcome.
[email protected]
