Business History Books » Business Consultant » ILENA ROSENTHAL, AND DOES 1 TO 100
ILENA ROSENTHAL, AND DOES 1 TO 100
Question:
COMMIT LIBEL ** **Do you realize that Barrett and his ilk, lost against Dr Clark and Tim Bolen?? ** **The man has a control problem, he is sue happy and wasting the court’s time. ** **Jan Couldn’t agree more. They are sue happy … Terry The Terror Polevoy was just on another group threatening to sue because someone re-posted Bolen’s opinion … (see below) They refuse to post any of the responses to their complaint … they use this suit to bully people silent … Just to clarify … what Barrett & Grell & Polevoy have lost so far, is most of the other Defendents’ Motions to Quash because they were never legally served … I am still the only one legally served, and that is only because I had my lawyer call Grell and ask for it … I received "garbage" service from them also … Stay tuned … Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.hepatitis Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Leola, You have posted a defamatory and libelous post by Tim Bolen. I suggest that you visit our lawsuit and tell me specifically why you should not be included as a Jane Doe in this action. http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Hulda_Clark/index.html What in the world are you doing? ~~~~~~~ Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.hepatitis Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Your name has been forwarded to Chris Grell. He will be contacting you if he feels that the post that you made of Tim Bolen’s libelous and defamatory post is worthy of action. This is the last time you will receive any attention from me.
Response:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., TERRY POLEVOY, M.D., CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL, Plaintiffs, vs. HULDA CLARK, TIM BOLEN, JAN BOLEN, JURIMED, DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, DAVID P. AMREIN, ILENA ROSENTHAL, AND DOES 1 TO 100. Defendants. ) No. ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ) FOR LIBEL, LIBEL PER SE ) AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LIBEL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs allege: 1. Defendant HULDA CLARK, an individual, is an unlicensed naturopath who resides in California and operates a clinic in California and Mexico. She claims that all cancers and many other diseases are caused by "parasites, toxins, and pollutants" and can be cured within a few days by administering a low-voltage electric current, herbs, and other nonstandard modalities. 2. Defendants TIM and JAN BOLEN are individuals who reside in California and do business as JURIMED, an entity whose purpose is to assist "alternative" health practitioners faced with regulatory action, criminal prosecution, or other matters that threaten their financial well-being and/or license to practice. 3. Defendant Jurimed is a corporation with its principal place of business located in California. 4. Defendant DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION is a corporation located and doing business in California. Its stated object is "to validate Dr. Clark’s treatment protocol through research studies and ensure its application." This Defendant does or has done the following: (a) Provides news and other information about Hulda Clark and her activities, including the publication of libelous statements involving this lawsuit. (b) Describes and promotes Dr. Clark’s theories and methods. (c) Sells, herbs, vitamins, devices, and other products used for diagnosis and treatment based on Dr. Clark’s theories. (d) Sells instructional materials, including book’s authored by Dr. Clark and videotapes. (e) Promotes and sells Dr. Clark’s "New 21 Day Program for Advanced Cancers" (current price – $1,732.75) and displays the phone number for seeking treatment. (f) Solicited funds to subsidize the defense when Hulda Clark was prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in Indiana, as noted in paragraph #16, below. 5. Defendant DAVID P. AMREIN is an individual who resides and does business in California and/or Switzerland. He founded and is president of the Dr. Clark Research Association, a California corporation, and operates its Web site http://www.drclark.net. Notwithstanding Mr. Amrein’s residence in Switzerland, he has substantial contacts in California. 6. Defendant ILENA ROSENTHAL is an individual who resides in California, directs the Humantics Foundation for Women, and is author of the self-published book, "Breast Implants: The Myths, The Facts, The Women." She also operates an Internet discussion group, alt.support.breast-implant, to which she has posted more than 8,000 messages since the middle of 1999. 7. The true name and capacity of each Defendant sued herein as a Doe 1 through 100 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or others, is unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues each such Defendant by a fictitious Doe name. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant designated as a Doe was in some manner responsible for the occurrences and the injuries to Plaintiffs as alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these Defendants as their names are ascertained. 8. Defendants TIM BOLEN and JAN BOLEN, individually, Jurimed, both individually and on behalf of DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, HULDA CLARK, DAVID P. AMREIN and ILENA ROSENTHAL and Does 1 thru 100, wrote numerous letters, articles, messages, and/or published these letters, articles and messages, on the internet and sent to numerous individuals starting on or about November 7, 1999. The writings and publications were performed by or on behalf of Defendants TIM BOLEN, JAN BOLEN, JURIMED, DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, HULDA CLARK, DAVID P. AMREIN and ILENA ROSENTHAL, all of whom do business in the State of California, and Does 1 to 100 (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendant Publishers" or "Defendants.") 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Publishers and Does 1 through 100 sent the internet postings and e-mails attached as Exhibits 1 thru 14, to individuals around California, the United States, Canada, and to people all over the world. (Exhibit A is an index of Exhibit 1-15.) 10. At all relevant times, each Defendant conspired with each other Defendant to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint. 11. At all relevant times, each Defendant knew all facts alleged in this complaint to have been done by any other Defendant. 12. Plaintiff Stephen Barrett, M.D., a Pennsylvania resident, is a medical journalist and consultant who has achieved national renown as a consumer advocate. His Quackwatch Web site is a guide to health fraud, quackery, and intelligent consumer decisions. He is also a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a nonprofit consumer-protection organization. 13. Plaintiff Terry Polevoy, M.D., is an American citizen who resides and practices medicine in Canada. Like Dr. Barrett, he operates a large Web site that exposes health frauds and quackery. 14. Plaintiff Christopher Grell is an attorney who resides and practices in Oakland, California, and has a special interest in cases involving health fraud or harm caused by herbal products. One of his clients is a former patient of Hulda Clark who is suing Dr. Clark for fraud. 15. Plaintiffs Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs." 16. In September 1999, Hulda Clark was arrested in California, based on a fugitive warrant from Indiana, where she faced charges of practicing medicine without a license. The case originated in 1993 when Dr. Clark lived and practiced in Indiana. Government documents and press reports indicate that after a former patient complained to the Indiana attorney general, a health department official, accompanied by a deputy attorney general, visited her office and was diagnosed with AIDS and sent to a laboratory for a blood test. Dr. Clark — apparently tipped off by the lab — found out she was being investigated and left Indiana a few days later. In 1999, she was apprehended in California and returned to Indiana to stand trial. In April 2000, an Indiana judge dismissed the charges on grounds that too much time had elapsed between the filing of the charges and Dr. Clark’s arrest. 17. Defendants TIM and JAN BOLEN refer to themselves as "publicists for Dr. Clark." Various Internet postings indicate that on or about September 28, 1999, Dr. Clark’s son, Geoffrey, hired Bolen and/or JuriMed to assist Dr. Clark after she was arrested. Presumably acting as Dr. Clark’s agent, Bolen urged her followers to donate money for her defense and to send letters protesting her prosecution. He also issued bulletins promoting Dr. Clark’s public appearances. The Dr. Clark Research Association Web site identifies "Tim and Jan Bolen from JuriMed" as "Clark’s media contacts" and displays their phone number and e-mail address. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Libel) 18. On or about November 9, 1999, Defendant Publishers and Does 1 through 100, began maliciously distributing false, defamatory, and disparaging messages about Plaintiffs. These messages, authored and published by Defendants, were e-mailed to mailing lists, posted on Internet message boards and news groups, posted to the Dr. Clark Research Association Web site, and distributed through several other channels. These messages were distributed from the e-mail addresses of Defendants. Some of these libelous messages were republished by David Amrein on the Dr. Clark Research Association Web site and/or distributed through the Defendant’s electronic newsletter. At least one was repeatedly posted to newsgroups by Ilena Rosenthal. Some of these messages were also republished on other Web sites. (Exhibits 1 through 14 are the writings Plaintiffs’ presently know about that are the subject of this claim. These writings are incorporated as if set forth herein.) 19. Defendants have actively and aggressively distributed false and defamatory information about Plaintiffs to thousands of individuals in around the United States, including persons in the State of California, Canada and around the world. The object of these activities is to destroy the Plaintiffs’ good reputation and to make them objects of ridicule, hatred, and personal attack. 20. At various times, in various combinations, the Defendants conspired with each other to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint. 21. Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their professional practices depend entirely on their reputation for competence, credibility, and honesty. As set forth in Exhibits 1 through 14, incorporated as if set forth herein, at various times, the Defendants, deliberately, and with actual malice, … read more »