Quackwatch Home Page CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL (#88498)

RICHARD F. RESCHO (#108086)

IAN P. DILLON (#203612)

LAW OFFICES OF

CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL

The Broadlake Plaza

360 22nd Street, Suite 320

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 832-2980 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 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, disseminated false, defamatory, and malicious statements to the effect that: (a) Dr. Barrett is arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report, and other unspecified acts). (b) Dr. Polevoy is dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic remarks. (c) Attorney Grell is professionally incompetent and has filed a false report with the FBI. 22. Plaintiffs learned about the first libelous writing on or about November 7, 1999 and learned of others subsequently. 23. Exhibits “1” through “14,” attached to this complaint, provide true and correct copies of the messages presently known, with some of them accompanied by Plaintiffs’ comments on their erroneous, libelous, and derogatory passages. 24. The false, malicious, disparaging, and defamatory statements disseminated by Defendants attack Dr. Barrett, Dr. Polevoy, Attorney Grell, and/or “Quackbusters” in general, all of whom Defendants refer to as “Quackpots.” 25. The specific stated or implied derogations pertaining to Dr. Barrett include: (a) He has been de-licensed.

(b) He is deliberately misleading people by calling himself a doctor.

(c) He makes dubious claims about being a psychiatrist.

(d) He is incredibly arrogant and a dishonest journalist.

(e) He is the epitome of a streetcorner bully, an Internet thug.

(f) He maintains a “hit list” of “quacks”. Only those whose works who seriously frighten Barrett’s sponsors make this list.

(g) He and his minions, falsely give the impression to law-enforcement agencies that they have some standing in the medical community.

(h) He, his cronies, and his minions are not known to do intelligent research.

(i) He was faced down by doctors at Johns Hopkins University when he tried to quote from studies that did not exist.

(j) He was disqualified as an expert witness in New York last year.

(k) He does not research the people and protocols he criticizes. He attacked Hulda Clark without even reading her books.

(l) He has “deep pockets” of money behind him.

(m) His income from assisting a foreign drug cartel could be as much as one million dollars per year.

(n) He operates a “murderous attack organization.”

(o) He is part of a conspiracy, a “propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil.”

(p) This “Quackbuster Conspiracy” started shortly after the American Medical Association lost a court battle to chiropractors in 1976.

(q) He has violated a federal judge’s injunction relating to the above case. He waited until the judge died, because otherwise he could have been imprisoned for violating the injunction.

(r) The AMA files, which somehow were allegedly wrong and improper, ended up in his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

(s) He is an “extortionist” and “obfuscatory”; is committing crimes such as extortion; and is a bully.

(t) His local police department and district attorney are investigating him for extortion.

(u) Rumors say that he is in bad health.

(v) He brought and/or filed false criminal charges against an individual known as Salvatore D’Onofrio. He convinced members of the Laguna Beach Police Department that D’Onofrio was “a sex criminal preying on women.” He ruined D’Onofrio’s life.

(w) Quackwatch is being sued by many doctors and health organizations in the United States. 26. The specific stated or implied derogations pertaining to Dr.Polevoy include: (a) He is “pure fraud.”

(b) He has falsely claimed to be a respected medical doctor.

(c) He is a “pimple doctor.”

(d) He has had little scientific training.

(e) He engages in bombacity, lies, and misrepresentations.

(f) He believes that his medical license entitles him to engage in lies, misrepresentations, and bad behavior.

(g) He has “deep pockets” of money behind him.

(h) “He is an embarrassment to the medical profession.”

(i) His medical license should be revoked.

(j) He engages in malicious falsehoods.

(k) He has engaged in “anti-Semitic ravings” and a “virulent anti-Jewish attack” directed toward a Dr, Horowitz, who filed a formal complaint with the FBI’s hate-crimes unit.

(l) He stalked Canadian radio producer Christine McPhee for months until she “in fear for her safety” called in the police.

(m) Police reports show that Christine McPhee was not the only female Polevoy stalked.

(n) His actions against McPhee and his “virulent attacks” against Hulda Clark caused Clark Team One to arrange for security guards for her Canadian appearance.

(o) He and another Canadian doctor developed a campaign of outright lies and misrepresentations of the information delivered on McPhee’s shows, which caused her program to be canceled.

(p) To the trained ears of health professionals he sounds, and is, ludicrous.

(q) His Web site is so virulent that it brings his mental state into question.

(r) In his current mental state, he is a danger to the community.

(s) His “hate” Web site was so offensive, and he was so “out there,” that his Internet Service Provider permanently removed it on July 4, 2000.

(t) His Web site was shut down because it had become legally untenable for the server; too many lawsuits had been generated for its hate information and distortions of facts about people and medical issues.

(u) His current mental state is so dangerous to the Canadian community that his medical license should be suspended pending outcome of an investigation.

(v) His mental impairment is sufficient to justify investigating him for violating eight provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code: (1) practicing the profession while the member’s ability is impaired; (2) having a conflict of interest; (3) making a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device; (4) making a claim respecting the utility of a remedy, treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as reasonable professional opinion; (5) falsifying a record relating to the member’s practice; (6) signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows, or ought to know, is false or misleading; (7) an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional; and (8) conduct unbecoming a physician.

(w) A criminal investigation of “Canadian Quackwatch’s” subversive activities should begin immediately. 27. The specific derogations involving Drs. Barrett and Polevoy as “Quackbusters” include: (a) Quackbusters should be referred to as “Quackpots.”

(b) The most prominent characteristic of Quackpots is that “Each one of them considers themselves to be experts on all facets of medicine.”

(c) The main tactics the “Quackpots” use are intimidation, public mockery and frivolous lawsuits.

(d) When you take a look at what Quackpots attack, it is easy to come to the conclusion that there has to be some funding by some major Pharmaceutical Companies, somewhere.

(e) Drs. Barrett and Polevoy are behind attacks on thousands of “dedicated health humanitarians.” “The attack comes from “bonded subversive groups conspiratorially formed into attack units, and funded both directly, and indirectly by the sleaziest elements of the pharmaceutical drug cartel.”

(f) The “Quackbuster” operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It has declared war on reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by the “conventional” medical-industrial complex.

(g) State medical boards are serving the needs of Quackbusters and their paymasters.

(h) The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) should be regarded as “minions of the medical establishment.”

(i) NCAHF activities have deprived millions of Americans of first-rate health care, causing unnecessary suffering and death.

(j) Quackbusters are being discredited all the time.

(k) The subversive “quackbuster” organization is participating in a civil and criminal conspiracy to eliminate “Alternative medicine” from Canadian broadcasting.

(l) Clark Team One is collecting information on Drs. Barrett, Polevoy and others and is “thrilled” with what they have been getting.

(m) The book “Racketeering in Medicine” exposes improper NCAHF activities in detail, except for who is funding “these people.” Learning that would require “a series of search warrants and a grand jury investigation.”

(n) “Quackpot crazies” represented a sufficient threat to Hulda Clark’s safety when she spoke at a meeting in Canada in March 2000, that it was necessary to have armed security present at the event. 28. The specific derogations involving Attorney Grell include: (a) He is a courtroom dimwit.

(b) He filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Barrett in the wrong state.

(c) He filed a lawsuit against Hulda Clark in the wrong country.

(d) He is incompetent at writing lawsuits.

(e) He fits the profile of the “typical quackpot.”

(f) He filed a false complaint against Hulda Clark with the FBI in San Diego.

(g) The State Bar should hold a hearing to judge his competence. 29. In addition to the reckless disregard for the facts, Defendants’ writings show considerable evidence of malice. On or about April 29, 2000, Defendant posted this message on eGroups and sent it privately to Dr. Barrett: “Herr quackpot: With your usual intent to mislead, and mis-inform, on behalf of your paymasters(?), you sent the following message allegedly ‘permanently blocking’ me from your list. What a joke! Who are you trying to impress, ‘has been?’ Reichsmarshall, I’m not on your list – never have been, and don’t care to be. . . But Stevie boy, you’re on mine… And, you won’t be off it until I hear the judge’s gavel come down on your sentence, and I see the Marshall’s take you away in shackles. Of course, I’ll have the media present for that occasion.” 30. Other messages displaying great malice include: (a) “Hulda Clark’s support team can, and is very eager, to kick the shit out of the NAZI(s)? any day of the week. No empty threats here — just the facts of life.”

(b) “The quackbusters need to be smacked hard.”

(c) Quackbusters are sleazy.

(d) It is time to shut down the “Quackbusters.”

(e) “No one, so far, has made the attackers [Quackbusters] bleed.”

(f) I’m about to tell you . . . how you can help begin . . . the destruction of the plotters.”

(g) I suspect Polevoy wants to be the new supreme leader – when Barrett goes out in the pine box.” 31. Defendants are well aware that Plaintiffs regard their messages as inaccurate and defamatory. 32. On April 30, 2000, Defendants posted a message to the Dr.Clark eGroup recommending a book called “Racketeering in Medicine.” Defendants allege that it tells the story of NCAHF and is a very credible book. That same day, Dr. Barrett warned Defendants that the book contained many false and defamatory statements about him. Defendants replied: “I recommend Dr. Carter’s book to everyone, and, as I would hate to recommend a defamatory book could you please give me the page numbers, paragraphs and sentences that you consider to be lies?” 33. Even though Dr. Barrett provided the requested details, Defendants have continued to recommend the book and to repeat some of its defamatory contents. Defendants have also recommended another book from the same publisher that contains similar defamations even though they have been informed by Dr. Barrett, that Dr. Barrett sued the publisher and author and obtained a settlement that included modification of the book. 34. On or about July 2, 2000, in response to complaints by Plaintiffs, the Legal Department of eGroups determined that certain of Defendants’ writings violated eGroups’ Terms of Service regarding abuse. An eGroups official deleted these messages from the eGroups archive and warned Defendants that if they posted another abusive message, they would be terminated from membership in the Dr. Clark eGroup. Defendants did so anyway and, on August 14, 2000, Tim and Jan Bolen’s account was terminated. 35. On or about August 14, 2000, Defendants began disseminating a message accusing Dr. Polevoy of stalking women and urging “health activists . . . from around the world” to file complaints to government officials, media organizations, and regulatory agencies. The suggested actions were detailed in sample messages and included: (a) A complaint with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons about Polevoy’s activities. Bolen advised all to “Make sure you use the word ‘stalking.'”

(b) An “Urgent” complaint to the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) about the radio network taking Christine McPhee off the air, allegedly, because of Polevoy’s lies and misrepresentations.

(c) Urging broadcasting officials and a member of Parliament to “see that a criminal investigation of ‘Canadian Quackwatch’ subversive activities begins immediately.” 36. Shortly afterward, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal (aka “Ilene Rose”) republished the above messages to two Usenet newsgroups. Dr. Barrett notified her that the messages contained false and defamatory information about him and Dr. Polevoy and threatened suit if they were not withdrawn. Instead of withdrawing them, she posted messages about Dr. Barrett’s threat accompanied by a copy of the libelous message. This posting and several of her subsequent ones refer to Drs. Barrett and/or Polevoy as “Quacks.” The title of these messages contained the words “Sleasy ‘Quackbuster’ Scam.” She posted a total of 32 such messages to the newsgroups misc.health.alternative and talk politics.medicine on August 14, 2000 and two such messages on misc.health.alternative on August 18, 2000. Her post triggered 30 additional responses with the same title, many of which were defamatory to Drs. Polevoy and Barrett. 37. On June 28, 2000, Defendant Ilene Rosenthal posted a message to misc.health.alternative referring to Dr. Barrett and falsely stating that “there are bunches of $$$$ coming to him to run that PRO-AMA anti alt.med website. PR pays well, and surely he takes in more than $25K per year.” 38. On or about August 18, 2000, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal posted to the newsgroup misc.health.alternative a copy of a message falsely stating that “Quackwatch appears to be a power-hungry, misguided bunch of pseudoscientific socialistic bigots”; is an “industry funded organization”; and is being sued by many doctors and health organizations. 39. On October 9, 2000, Defendant Ilena Rosenthal posted a message to misc.health.alternative headed “Re: Quackbuster Barrett *is* a quack – by his own definition.” The message referred to Drs. Barrett and Polevoy as quacks. 40. By August 25, 2000, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario received complaints from Defendants and nine other persons, several of whom used Bolen’s suggested text. 41. On or about September 24, 2000, Tim Bolen disseminated a message stating: Barrett has the option to sue me in a court of law if he thinks I’ve libeled him. HE HAS NOT DONE THAT. . . . He knows that if he goes into the court system with me, It’ll be the end of him. Barrett is afraid of me – and rightfully so. . . . Because I’m making people THINK about what Barrett, and company, are ACTUALLY DOING to the American public. I’m asking hard questions — questions whose time have come. Barrett, and his band of bullies, don’t want those questions asked, nor repeated. . . . As soon as Barrett sues me I’ll obtain his financial records in discovery, and I’ll publish the details. In fact I intend to write a book about his activities from 1969 to the present. In the meantime, considering what I already know, I’ll stand by my statement – ‘In my opinion – the conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by.” 42. On or about October 20, 2000, Defendants issued an e-mail report addressed to “millions of health freedom fighters,” which said, in part: I want to again thank everyone for all of the information coming in. The “quackpot” file is getting huge, and almost ungainly. Team members are sorting and charting, and a new guidebook (first revision) outlining, and detailing, the conspiracy is underway. Website coming soon. 43. Defendants’ many publications present a mixture of statements intended to make Plaintiffs an object of ridicule and to bring them public and personal humiliation. The large number of factual errors, incorrect speculations, innuendo, and out-and-out false statements contained in said publications indicate that Defendants and those who republished Defendants’ statements failed to investigate the facts prior to publishing, and shows a reckless disregard or concern for the truth of said statements. 44. The above-mentioned statements were published and republished maliciously with the specific intent to harm the Plaintiffs and to advance and protect the commercial activities of Defendants, Tim and Jan Bolen, JuriMed, the Dr. Clark Research Association, and David Amrein. 45. Defendants, and each of them, and their officers, directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein. 46. Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the libelous, fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious acts of their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and each Defendants’ officers, directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their “alternate entities” as set forth herein. 47. The above-referenced conduct of said Defendants, their “alternate entities,” and each of them, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous and in conscious disregard and indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said Defendants, seek punitive damages according to proof. 48. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages previously alleged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their “alternate entities,” and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION



(Libel Per Se)

49. Paragraphs 1-48 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 50. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs enjoyed good reputations in the community and general public. 51. That the said statements made by Defendants are libelous on its face. Said statements clearly expose Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, ridicule and imply dishonest conduct. 52. The above-referenced conduct of said Defendants, their “alternate entities,” and each of them, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous and in conscious disregard and indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said Defendants, seek punitive damages according to proof. 53. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages previously alleged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their “alternate entities,” and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION



(Conspiracy)

54. Paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 55. On information and belief, Defendant Hulda Clark is using and promoting the use of diagnostic devices and treatment methods that lack FDA approval and would not be legal to market for their intended purposes within the State of California or in interstate commerce. 56. On information and belief, Defendant Dr. Clark Research Association, through its Web site and other channels; is marketing devices, herbs, and other products; lack state or federal government approval for their intended purposes; and would not be legal to market for their intended purposes within the State of California or in interstate commerce. 57. On information and belief, Defendant Dr. Clark Research Association, through its Web site and other channels, is promoting and marketing books written by Hulda Clark and promoting and collecting payment for Dr. Clark’s services in Mexico. Information about this commercial activity is incorporated herein as Exhibit “15.” 58. At various times, in various combinations, the Defendants conspired with each other to engage in the acts as alleged in this complaint. The purposes of this conspiracy have been to: (a) Further the commercial interests of Defendants Hulda Clark, David Amrein, the Dr. Clark Research Association, Tim and Jan Bolen, and JuriMed.

(b) Promote the reputations of each of the Defendants.

(c) Undermine and assassinate the character of their critics, including the Plaintiffs.

(d) Share information with each other in furtherance of these goals. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, their “alternate entities,” and each of them as follows: 1. For Plaintiffs’ general damages according to proof;

2. For Plaintiffs’ loss of income, wages and earning potential according to proof;

3. For Plaintiffs’ cost of suit herein;

4. For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof; and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including costs as provided in CCP §998, CCP §1032 and related provisions of law. DATED: November 3, 2000 LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL By_________________________________

Ian P. Dillon

Attorney for Plaintiff(s) LIST OF EXHIBITS

The Most Dangerous Woman in the World – Hulda Clark (press release) Hulda Clark Campaign in High Gear A good laugh for all (“Herr quackpot”) Clark Update (May 12) Clark Update (May 20)

Plaintiffs’ response and analysis to #5 Clark Update – Into “Phase Two”

Plaintiffs’ response and analysis to #6 Most Dangerous Woman” Feted in Toronto Canadian Health Freedom Needs Our Help

Plaintiffs’ response and analysis to #8 Waterloo Regional Police report on Dr. Terry Polevoy Correspondence to and from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Newsgroup postings of Ilena Rosenthal (aka “Ilena Rose”) The Last Days of the Quackbusters

Plaintiffs’ response and analysis to #12 Health Freedom Wins a Big One The ‘Quackbuster’ Debate: Tim Bolen vs. Stephen Barrett, MD

Plaintiffs’ response and analysis to #14 Dr. Clark Research Association Web site promotions Additional Information about Bolen |||

Quackwatch Home Page This page was posted on January 18, 2001.