Quackpot news: FTC Vindicates Hulda Clark....

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.

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:02:37 -0500, Orac wrote:

Thank you for the clarification. I had not been aware of the details of
this case.

--
Orac |"I am not interested in trying to compensate
| for your amazing lack of observation."
|
| Orac


You still have not ...

You heard some Barrett Propaganda on this case ... not what happened.

You missed the part about the Plaintiffs not posting the required bond
for the case for it to continue ...

You missed a lot of things. First, lets get the order of things and the
facts correct. I have adjusted the order, based on the order of actions as
contained on Bolen's website. I will assume that Ilena beleives that he is
being truthful.

You missed the part about the Plaintiffs firing Malicous Prosecutor
Grell ...

No, they did not fire him. Clearly, when the Figeroas could not appear at
court ordered depositions, Grell did the right thing: he moved to be removed
from the case. This allows the Figueroas to either secure alternate counsel,
or proceed pro se. No attorney, however, will take a case where the court
has ordered discovery and the client will not appear. thus, they had to
proceed pro se, i.e., without an attorney. Sometimes, judges lean over
backwards to protect people in this circumstance.

Plaintiffs ordered to post $20,000 bond in order to proceed with case

Since Mrs. Figueroa was too ill to continue with the suit, she did not
appear for court ordered depositions. The defendants, who would do anything
to deny her a day in court, moved for sanctions. A posting of a bond is
something is if often required.

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/Stat...20Figueroa.htm
You missed the part about the Quacks using the Figueroa's for their
own twisted purposes ...

Using very ill people to be weapons in their Hatred against Dr. Clark

Well, that would be nice, except for the fact that the Figueroas contacted
Grell, possibly through Dr. Barrett.

Barrett and the other Quacks should be barred from using the courts
for their twisted vendettas.

Like you should????

BTW, since Clark, Jr. sued Grell for malicious prosecution, etc. and LOST
and was assessed legal fees, there is a good lesson to be learned from that.

For Grell to have been victorious, he had to show that his initial suit,
i.e., Figueroas vs. Clark, that there was a reasonable likelihood for his
clients to prevail. So, since he won in California, the California judge had
to rule that the Figueroas suit had merit.

And, the defense had none.

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:02:37 -0500, Orac wrote:

In 2001, the Figueroa family indicated to their attorney (Christopher
Grell)I'
that undergoing a deposition would be too stressful for Mrs. Figueroa.
Mr.
Grell therefore petitioned the court to withdraw from the case, and the
case
ended shortly afterward.


Who wrote this?

It is not the entire story.

No, it is not.

Was there a link to this version of Grell's reality?

If you carefully correlate the account that I published with the sequence of
events as listed on Bolen's site, you wil see that this is accurate.

Seems they lured Mrs Figeroa into a bizarre litigation ...

Mrs. Figueroa lived in the Bronx, NY. Grell is in California, and Barrett is
in PA. She found them.

I did a bit of a search and found this:

ESTHER FIGUEROA 11 Apr 1917 23 Oct 2002 (V) 10453 (Bronx, Bronx, NY) (none
specified)

on the SS Death Index.

That is the rest of the story.

Clark buries another victim.

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
...

"Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message
...

"Orac" wrote in message
news
In article


.au,
"Peter Moran" wrote:

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:48:41 +0000 (UTC), "john"
wrote:


Grell, you may remember, is the one who brought the original action
against
Hulda Clark, allegedly on behalf of his clients, the Figueroas.
Stephen
Barrett, and his parrots, made a big deal about this case. After a
period
of time the Figueroas fired Grell - right after they were required
to
be
deposed about their claims. Then Grell sued Hulda Clark
personally,
claiming that she had hired me (Tim Bolen) to defame him (insert
guffaw
here).


I've asked many times what happened to the Figueroas ... it seems
to
me that they too, were victims of the Quacks and their misguided
hatred of Dr. Clark ...

How did they benefit in any way with having Mallicious Prosecutor
Grell sue Dr. Clark ...???

She was a very ill woman, I understand ... and being used in this
court case probably harmed her even more.

Why is she ill? She has the "cure for all diseases". she says..

Indeed. If it is true that Hulda Clark is "very ill," one wonders how
great her "cure for all diseases" really is. It can't be that great.
Otherwise, why can't she (or one of her acolytes) "cure" herself?

You misunderstand. Mrs. Figueroa was a very ill woman who apparently
tried
Hulda Cure for All Diseases and was snot successful. Here is the true
story:

The civil case was filed by Esther and Jose Figueroa of New York City
against Clark, the Dr. Clark Research Association, Century Nutrition,
and
several associated individuals. Mrs. Figueroa, who had been medically
diagnosed with breast cancer, sought treatment in September 1998. The
court
papers state that she was told:

Dust from her apartment was responsible for her breast cancer.
Returning to her apartment would place her at special risk to develop
leukemia because of her blood type.
She had asbestos, lead, and a lot of copper in her system.
The Syncrometer detected a parasite called "rabbit fluke" inside her
breast.
She also had E. coli, asbestos, and salmonella due to improper food
sterilization.
Several teeth should be removed and "cavitations" in her lower jaw
should
be
scraped out.

Thanks for the correction. I misread Ilena's edited post.

The above is a typical Hulda "prescription". Her latest book would add a
whole lot more pointless hurdles for her poor clients to clear, including
possibly moving house to find somewhere with water that is not
contaminated
with metallic impurities such as ruthenium and lanthanides and, of course,
fluoride. Never mind that there is not the slightest evidence of benefit
from any of her recommendations in persons with established cancer, and no
body of cured cancer patients from her advice.

The advantage of attributing cancer to mysterious poisons and infestations
is if that if the patient doesn't happen to get cured, there is always one
more agent to blame. You have to keep reading her books to keep up.

Just do not buy them.

Ilena is now spinning this case, like Clark Junior did in his suit against
Grell, by claiming that the Figeuroas were the victims of Barrett and Grell,
when it is obvious that the Figueroas found them, and not vice versa.

You can get the official record of what happened in the original case, as
well as the suit brought by Clark Junior against Grell by reading the
appeals court decision:

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fo...ame=index.html

You may need to navigate the site 9I think it is poorly done) and use the
case #2001-030441 which should be entered as 2001030441.

However, no matter how Ilena and Jan want to spin this, Mrs. Figueroa was a
victim of Clark.

"Ilena Rose" in her offical capacity as the DIVERTING,
Dominating Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and
apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, wrote in message
...

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST BARRETT

Ilena, the subject is the fact that Mrs. Figueroa was a victim of Clark,
which is well documented in the decision where Grell was vindicated.

Please make an effort to stay on topic.

"Anth" wrote in message
.. .
I'm not an advocate of Hulda Clark, but you can tell that this article
stinks.
Badly burned her breast with a zapper?
How could a device which generates milliamps at best burn someone's
breast?

Look at the entire picture, not just a single allegation, for that is what
the claims are.

Mrs. Figueroa followed Clark's program and her tumor went from 1.5 to 14 cm
in three months. She was too sick to proceed with the litigation against
Clark.

you can use this link to read the appellate decision where the underlying
case (the one where the Figueroa's were the plaintiffs) is disucssed.

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fo...ame=index.html

Use this number:

2001030441

You wil have to wait for a viewer to be loaded, etc. and then you can read
the decision.

Please include the above link and the index number in any reply so I can
easily refer to the decision.


Anth

"Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message
news:TxMqd.9
[snip]
Clark subsequently arranged for all of Mrs. Figueroa's front and molar
teeth
to be removed, prescribed more than 30 dietary and herbal supplements to
be
taken during a 12-week period, and badly burned her breast while
administering treatment with a "Zapper" device.

During the 3-month period of treatment, the tumor increased from 1.5 cm
to
14 cm.

Despite this fact, Mrs. Figueroa was falsely told that she was getting
better, that tests for "cancer markers" were negative, and that pain she
was
experiencing did not reflect persistence of her cancer.

In 2001, the Figueroa family indicated to their attorney (Christopher
Grell)
that undergoing a deposition would be too stressful for Mrs. Figueroa.
Mr.
Grell therefore petitioned the court to withdraw from the case, and the
case
ended shortly afterward. One of the defendants (Self Health Resource
Center,
operated by Clark's son Geoffrey) then sued Grell and two associates for
malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Grell responded with a
motion
to
dismiss, which was granted and upheld on appeal, with an award of costs
and
attorneys fees to Grell. The Court of Appeal concluded:

The evidence amply supports a reasonable belief on the part of these
defendants [Grell and associates] that plaintiff [the Self Health
Resource
Center] was part of a network of persons and entities who acted
recklessly,
at best, luring Mrs. Figueroa into a bizarre, grotesque, and extremely
expensive regimen of "alternative" cancer treatments which has no effect
other than to exhaust the Figueroa's life savings and divert Mrs.
Figueroa
from conventional treatments, thereby reducing her prospects for
recovery
and survival [15].

15. Sepulveda J. Decision of the Court of Appeal of the State of
California,
First Appellate District, Division Four, in Self Health Resource Center
v
Christopher Grell et al. A098285 (Alameda County Superior Court No.
2001-030441). Filed May 19, 2003.

Anyone who claims that this account is inaccurate should be prepared to
post
the original decision.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:02:10 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:



FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST BARRETT

Ilena, the subject is the fact that Mrs. Figueroa was a victim of

the Quacks ... using her as a weapon against Dr. Clark ...

When the Judge demanded that in order to carry out this unjust attack
on Dr CLark ... that the Plaintiffs put up a bond of $20K ... they
refused.

The Figueroa's were just more victims of crazed, wackos out to destroy
Dr Clark ... using any means possible.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:35:03 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:

when the Figeroas could not appear at
court ordered depositions, Grell did the right thing:


Nope ... the Plaintiffs were required by the court to place $20K to
continue their attacks on Dr Clark ... they refused.

Grell and Barrett should never have abused the plaintiffs and not
explained what a lawsuit would entail.

They are MadMen on a Rampage ... and use shills like you to lie for
them, Marla.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:40:02 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:02:37 -0500, Orac wrote:

In 2001, the Figueroa family indicated to their attorney (Christopher
Grell)I'
that undergoing a deposition would be too stressful for Mrs. Figueroa.
Mr.
Grell therefore petitioned the court to withdraw from the case, and the
case
ended shortly afterward.


Who wrote this?

It is not the entire story.

No, it is not.

Was there a link to this version of Grell's reality?

If you carefully correlate the account that I published with the sequence of
events as listed on Bolen's site, you wil see that this is accurate.

Seems they lured Mrs Figeroa into a bizarre litigation ...

Mrs. Figueroa lived in the Bronx, NY. Grell is in California, and Barrett is
in PA. She found them.

I did a bit of a search and found this:

ESTHER FIGUEROA 11 Apr 1917 23 Oct 2002 (V) 10453 (Bronx, Bronx, NY) (none
specified)

on the SS Death Index.

That is the rest of the story.



Another Quack Barrett Victim.

"Ilena Rose" in her official capacity as the DOMINATING
Directrix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently
DE-funct Humantics Foundation, wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:40:02 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:02:37 -0500, Orac wrote:

In 2001, the Figueroa family indicated to their attorney
(Christopher
Grell)I'
that undergoing a deposition would be too stressful for Mrs.
Figueroa.
Mr.
Grell therefore petitioned the court to withdraw from the case, and
the
case
ended shortly afterward.


Who wrote this?

It is not the entire story.

No, it is not.

Was there a link to this version of Grell's reality?

If you carefully correlate the account that I published with the sequence
of
events as listed on Bolen's site, you wil see that this is accurate.

Seems they lured Mrs Figeroa into a bizarre litigation ...

Mrs. Figueroa lived in the Bronx, NY. Grell is in California, and Barrett
is
in PA. She found them.

I did a bit of a search and found this:

ESTHER FIGUEROA 11 Apr 1917 23 Oct 2002 (V) 10453 (Bronx, Bronx, NY)
(none
specified)

on the SS Death Index.

That is the rest of the story.



Another Quack Barrett Victim.

Hogwash. She is a victim of Hulda Clark and her minions. She used Clark's
treatments from her books and died. Her tumor grew from 1.5 cm to 14 cm in
three months.

AFAIAC, Clark murdered her.