Stephen Barrett: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, AND DEMAND FOR SATISFACTION... October 24th, 2003
Stephen Barrett:
On October 15th, 2003, the California Appeals Court District #1, in the case titled "Barrett vs.
Rosenthal," issued an OPINION which clearly states "the facts as to Barrett and Grell, who were
not defamed"
I hereby ORDER YOU to remove all information about Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, or JuriMed, from any
publication you own, or is under your control. You have made statements about all of these which are
NOT TRUE, DEFAMATORY, and INJURIOUS TO ME, AND MY BUSINESS INTERESTS. Both the trial court and the
California Appeals Court have verified my concerns.
(1) I hereby DEMAND that you replace any, and all, messages, or publications currently under your
control, mentioning my name, or any of the names listed above, with a message of my choice -
as follows:
"I, Stephen Barrett,have made certain claims of falsehood, defamation, libel, conspiracy and
criminal acts against Tim Bolen, a well known Consumer Advocate and leader in the North American
Health Freedom Movement. Mr. Bolen also, separately owns and runs a business, with his wife Jan,
called JuriMed - Public Relations & Research Group. I sued Mr. & Mrs. Bolen, and others, on the
above matters, in a California court - and lost. I then appealed the decision to the California
Appeals court 1st District - and LOST again. The courts decided against me, and pointed out that Mr.
Bolen, in his commentaries, was completely within his rights, as an American, to voice his opinion.
I published my claims on several websites. My claims have been found to be without merit."
(2) I hereby DEMAND that you DISMISS all lawsuits against me or mine in regard to this matter,
forthwith.
(3) I hereby DEMAND that you DISMISS any, and all, lawsuits, and/or actions filed against those that
published my articles, forthwith.
(4) I hereby DEMAND that you submit to a physical and mental evaluation by health professionals of
my choice. You will follow their recommendations and treatment choices.
My legal representatives will let you know what else I require.
You have 96 hours to comply.
WHAT THE COURT SAID...
To whit: "The trial court's conclusion that respondent's allegedly libelous statements were
protected by the anti-SLAPP statute explicitly rested on subdivisions (e)(3) and (e)(4) of section
425.16, which declare that " 'an act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech
under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue' includes . . .
(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in
connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise
of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection
with a public issue or an issue of public interest." The order granting the motion to strike focused
upon the public nature of the issue the parties disputed and to which Rosenthal's allegedly libelous
statements related: "the validity or invalidity of alternative medicine." The court determined that
this was "a highly controversial matter which is of significant public importance and interest,
affecting the health of millions of people involving billions of dollars." Appellants do not
challenge this determination. Implicitly conceding Rosenthal's statements relate to "an issue of
public interest," they instead contend that the Internet sites on which Rosenthal posted her
statements were not "a place open to the public or a public forum," as the trial court assumed, and
Rosenthal therefore did not post the statements allegedly defaming appellants in furtherance of her
right of free speech. This novel contention is difficult to take seriously."
I've met some DUMB people in my life, Barrett, but the EXTRA-DUMB argument you put forward to the
Appeals Court, stating that the internet was not "a place open to the public or a public forum," has
got to get an award. I loved the Appeals Court's comment about your argument - "This novel
contention is difficult to take seriously." Even Judges openly laugh at you...
YOUR BEHAVIOR IN THIS CASE...
Throughout this case, and in your publications, where you allege "Defamation" you have FAILED to
produce ANY EVIDENCE of said defamation - except for YOUR OWN dubious statements and
"interpretations" of my words and commentaries, EVEN WHEN WE LEGALLY DEMANDED THAT YOU DO SO. You
did this, I believe, to subject me, my wife, my business, and my standing as a Consumer Advocate, to
the hatred, abuse, contempt, or ridicule, of others.
On your website, quackwatch.com, which claims "millions of hits," you have consistently maligned me,
and my wife of 38 years. On your web address "quackwatch.orgbolen.htmlOpen ↗" titled "A
Response to Tim Bolen," you accuse me, and others, of a criminal act (fraud) when you claim that
world renowned health humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark PhD, Naturopath, myself, and others, are
engaging in promoting "false ideas." You make numerous statements beyond this, for none of which you
offer any proof. Indeed, you you have FAILED to produce ANY EVIDENCE of said actions - except for
YOUR OWN dubious statements, EVEN WHEN WE LEGALLY DEMANDED THAT YOU DO SO. You did this, I believe,
to subject me, my wife, my business, and my standing as a Consumer Advocate, to the hatred, abuse,
contempt, or ridicule, of others.
You have provided information, for public consumption, on the quackwatch website, and others,
which has NOT WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF A COURTROOM. You did this, I believe, to subject me, my wife,
my business, and my standing as a Consumer Advocate, to the hatred, abuse, contempt, or ridicule,
of others.
In this so-called "Defamation" case you posted the case on your website, and never legally served
me, until I DEMANDED service, knowing, I believe, YOU NEVER HAD A CASE FOR DEFAMATION. You inferred
to the public that I "was hiding," when in fact, my legal address for service was on the first page
of the first exhibit all of the time. You knew my address when you filed the case. You simply, I
believe, didn't want to PUBLICLY GET YOUR ASS QUICKLY KICKED IN COURT - like what DID happen. You
did this, I believe, to subject me, my wife, my business, and my standing as a Consumer Advocate, to
the hatred, abuse, contempt, or ridicule, of others.
LAST, BUT NOT LEAST...
You should be ashamed of yourself, Stevie. For years you've made your wife support you while you
engaged in your anti-health follies. Your message about yourself, and your relationship with health
care, to me, is transparent. You are simply a man who had ambitions, and was unable to achieve them.
So in revenge, apparently, to a society who you seem to revile for their rejection of your hopes,
you attack "real" heroes in the health world - like Research Scientist Hulda Regehr Clark, two-time
Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling, and a host of others.
You wanted to be known as a "Psychiatrist," but you couldn't pass the written test - so all you
could find was part time work, and not much of that. You wanted to be an "MD" but you couldn't
generate enough business to pay the malpractice insurance premiums.
Is your wife, who is now retired, paying your legal fees? According to your courtroom statements,
you haven't made enough money in the last few years to buy a decent new car, much less pay for all
the cases you are involved in. Are you draining your wife's retirement income with these ego-related
court cases?
I don't know how you can hold your head up in public.
Tim Bolen