A California Judge, on July 25th, 2001, SLAPPed de-licensed MD Stephen Barrett, and his minions, around an Alameda courtroom (so to speak). Judge James A. Richman, in a twenty-seven page decision DEMOLISHED Barrett’s campaign of terror against those that criticize him for his sleazy quackbuster operation.
I’d love to be able to claim credit for this – but I can’t. The credit goes to our friend Ilena Rosenthal, director of the Humantics Foundation, and author of the book “Breast Implants: The Myths, The Facts, The Women.” You can thank her for her work at ilena@san.rr.com.
Opinion by Tim Bolen
Thank you, Ilena. You’ve done a good thing for America.
Barrett, who threatens to sue anyone who criticizes him, or reposts any articles (especially those by TIM BOLEN) that are critical of him, was a dealt a TERMINAL blow with Judge Richman’s action. Barrett had sued Hulda Clark, Tim Bolen, JuriMed, David Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, New Century Press, etc. in California for allegedly DEFAMING him. The whole case (which he is losing badly), Barrett posted on his dubious website www.quackwatch.com.
You can read the whole decision, including court stamps, and Judge’s signatures, at www.healthfreedomlaw.com (in pdf or html format.
Even better, is that Barrett, and his henchmen, have to pay Ilena Rosenthal’s attorney fees and costs.
It looks to me that, now, since Barrett, and his ilk have seen the judge’s decision, should they threaten anyone with a lawsuit for posting, or reposting articles critical of them (including those by TIM BOLEN), they would be threatening someone with a lawsuit that THEY KNOW IS ILLEGAL according to California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. Could such a threat be interpreted as a TERRORIST ACT?
In a footnote of the decision, Judge Richman says that SLAPP is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” Section 425.16 says “The legislature funds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.”
Judge Richman’s decision is full of interesting comments. I’m, not going to replay the whole 27 pages here (go read the whole thing in its original form), but the “Conclusion” is the key here. It says “Based on the above, the Court concludes that Section 425.16 applies to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and that no Plaintiff has established by competent evidence a probability that he will prevail on his claim. Accordingly, Rosenthal’s motion will be granted, and Rosenthal will be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs according to proof. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Of course, as we all know, New Century Press, also named by Barrett, and henchmen, in this lawsuit, took an entirely different approach to dealing with Barrett, et al.
Stay tuned…
Tim Bolen