D
Dave
Guest
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
"http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html" 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
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
"http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html" 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