D
Dave
Guest
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN LANDMARK RULING
IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY - BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!
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.
IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY - BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!
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.