Category: Uncategorized

Things are about to get VERY, VERY bad for Stephen Barrett, his co-conspirators, minions, and supporters. 

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

The judge in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett case has come down hard, very hard, on Stephen Barrett and the other Defendants regarding their refusal to provide Discovery documents demanded by the Plaintiff Doctor’s Data’s attorneys.

The judge’s Order to Compel carries significant penalties, including the threat of arrest of Barrett, under the “Contempt of Court” rules, for failure to comply with the Order.  And they, the Defendants, have only until September 12th, 2012 (four days from now), to clean up their act. Continue reading Doctor’s Data v Barrett Case  – The Discovery Dam Has Been Burst… Part One:  The privilege removal.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

 

Two important DESPERATE attempts by the Vaccine PUSHERS  to stop UNEP from banning Thimerosal in Vaccines are not working.

The FIRST thing – On June 1st, 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Big Pharma’s tip-of-the-spear Vaccine Front, began to almost beg its allies around the world to come to the assistance of the Vaccine Industry at the UNEP Mercury (4) meeting. Continue reading Mercury in Vaccine PUSHERS Not Doing Well at UNEP (4) – Despite Desperate Moves…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

 

 

Yes, the title of this article is rude. But I’ve got some last minute Christmas shopping to do, and I’m not going to nice it up.  The reality, of course, is that it was not actually Santa Claus that delivered Barrett’s parts, but a Federal Judge.  Considering the timing of the Judge’s actions, I’ll stick with the title.

Last January 31st, 2011 Stephen Barrett, of quackwatch.com infamy, filed a Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, the Doctor’s Data v Stephen Barrett  Federal court case.  Barrett’s reasoning  (if you could call it that) was that he was protected from lawsuits because he, Barrett, was “Assisting Government.”  Laugh here. Continue reading Santa Claus Delivers Stephen Barrett’s Ass On a Platter…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

 

Health care is a serious business, but sometimes I just have to laugh out loud at the antics of those “we the people” have been dumb enough to entrust with administrative function in our health care system – example:  The Maryland Board of Physicians.

As we all know, the Maryland legislature issued a two-hundred page report virtually declaring the physician board incompetent last week, and hearings have been scheduled to bring the board to task. Continue reading Maryland Board of Physicians Seeks a Whitewash…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

 

The Maryland Board of Physicians woke up last week to find that the Maryland legislature, which they thought, I guess, was completely asleep, had quietly, and very thoroughly, conducted a formal investigation of the board’s operation.  The legislative committee in charge of this secret investigation issued a two-hundred page report scalding the department, virtually declaring the board incompetent and working against the interests of the people of Maryland.

In a moment I will show you flaming excerpts from this report.  Continue reading Maryland Board of Physicians May Not Survive Attack on Mark and David Geier…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

This article is a direct follow-up to an article I wrote October 4th, 2011 titled “The CDC Has Known All Along How Dangerous Vaccines Are – And Has Covered It Up… (Part One)” where I explained about Brian Hooker PhD’s lawsuit against the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for withholding public information he, and every American citizen, is entitled to under the US Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).  Brian Hooker has been investigating the five so-called “studies” the CDC claims prove that Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause Autism nor neurological disorders.

Today I will tell you the CDC’s formal response.  The title of this article pretty well sums up the CDC position.  Will they get away with this?  Nope.  Keep reading. Continue reading CDC Tells Federal Court –  “FOIA Means Nothing to Us.  We’ll Withhold Whatever We Want…”

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Things couldn’t have seemed rosier for Big Pharma last January, 2011.  Dismayed as they were at failed attempts to stave off financial losses from upcoming patent-run-outs, the situation, at least in the vaccine program, was nicely going to generate tons of gold bullion, satchels of emeralds, and shiploads of cash in ever increasing amounts – more than enough to keep those CEO and top executive annual bonuses rolling in.  Boards of Directors, and Common Stock Financial Fund Managers were all friendly – warm and fuzzy. Continue reading WHO, CDC, and FDA SCORNED at Third UN Mercury Conference…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Last week I wrote an article titled “Polevoy Thrashes Barrett and Grell in California – Piles of Money Change Hands…“  From it, Stephen Barrett, sent me three emails this last week – two of them were angry, and the third sort of whimpered.

Barrett was denying everything.  I’ll show you the email exchange in a minute.

Stephen Barrett hasn’t sent me an email since the year 2000, eleven years ago.  Barrett at the time was VERY angry at me, and, frankly, I had given him VERY good reason for that anger.  I mocked him in his own group, and there was nothing he could do about it – for I had been given his insider mailing list – and I was using it – sending personal copies of my newsletter to his insider group.  Barrett was livid, and so were his people.  Continue reading Where’d the Money Come From?  Grell/Barrett Pay Off Polevoy – Polevoy Pays Off Rosenthal…

It’s laughter time once again in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett Federal court case in Illinois.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Not long ago Stephen Barrett’s legal team (snort here) went to court to get a ten day extension to answer an answer to a Motion.  They said it was necessary to get more time so as to answer Doctor’s Data’s Official Response to their own Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the Response was “so very long.”  They got the ten days. Continue reading Attorney Botts MISSING – Barrett’s Legal Life In Hands of Rookie…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen

 

A few days ago, Christopher Grell, one of the Plaintiffs, and the attorney for the Plaintiffs Stephen Barrett  and Terry Polevoy , filed an emergency Ex Parte Motion with the Alameda, California Trial Court in the Barrett v. Clark (Rosenthal) case asking for a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Defendant Rosenthal from collecting attorney fees awarded to Rosenthal by the Courts.  The Court denied the Motion,  and “collection” has begun in earnest. Continue reading Courts Seize “Quackbuster” Bank Accounts, Property…

I, Tim Bolen, under oath, state as follows:

1. Professionally, I am  (a)  the President of JuriMed Public Relations research Group, Inc; a Crisis Management Consultant company in the health care industry.  (b)  a Consumer Advocate specializing in the problems of “cutting-edge” health care.
2. As a Crisis Management Consultant, my clients are almost exclusively “cutting-edge” health care practitioners.  For them we provide a wide variety of services including assistance to their attorneys, expert witnesses for Court cases, organization and coordination of support groups, media positions, legislative support, promotion, convention services, etc.
3. As a Consumer Advocate I am a severe critic of the existing US health care system.  I am a speaker at health conventions nationwide, regularly a guest on radio shows, and quoted in magazines and newspapers.  The thing I am most known for is that I am the owner, and author of the internet “Millions of Health Freedom Fighters – Newsletter,” a subscriber non-commercial internet newsletter based in California.
4. My newsletter, its computer systems, etc., are completely lawful, and compliant with California and US laws, including all anti-spam laws.   I have roughly 285,000 subscribers. I have been operating this newsletter, a critique of  “the politics of health care in the US,” since 1999.  Copies of all of those newsletters (over 500 editions) can be found at my websites www.bolenreport.com and www.quackpotwatch.org.
5. My newsletter is extremely controversial, and generates angry discussion of health issues.  My articles are carefully researched.  I raise issues not found elsewhere in the media.  Indeed, my comments about the problems in the US health care system cannot be found in mainstream media until, sometimes, months after I broadcast a story.
6. Of my 285,000 newsletter subscribers – I have about 12,000 media, 85,000 employees of government agencies involved in health care, 30,000 health care activists,15,000 environmentalists, 130,000 health care or health industry professionals, and the rest miscellaneous.
7. I have been attacked, because of my political positions, by an anti-spammer vigilante group, calling themselves the Spamhaus/SPEWS project, on several occasions.  Recently they have been able to completely block my ability to broadcast my newsletter to my subscribers.  ISPs are now afraid to host my newsletter as Spamhaus/SPEWS will shut them down for hosting me.
8. Currently, my websites are up and running, after I moved them, but I cannot broadcast my newsletter.  Spamhaus/SPEWS falsely claimed “reason” for blocking me is that I supposedly am a “criminal,” in that I send out bulk emails.  But, as shown below, their original written reason used in the first blocklisting tells an entirely different story.  And when I complained to them about their activities, and threatened legal action, they went out of their way to ruin my reputation on the internet.
9. I have discovered that Spamhaus/SPEWS is  a “vigilante” type organization falsely characterizing themselves as an “anti-spammer” group. They make up their own definition of “spam” and that definition appears to change from day-to-day.  Their definition(s) differ, considerably, from the ones enacted into both US and State laws. In essence anyone they don’t like gets labeled as a spammer and significant damage is done to those victims. The Spamhaus/SPEWS membership, or whatever they call themselves, is a secret.  Those members, or “volunteers,”  use “fake” email addresses and identities.
10. I have learned, for instance, the identities of several of the Spamhaus/SPEWS “volunteers,” and have discovered that many of them have business interests that compete with those victims they select for “blocking.” I have also learned that several of their “volunteers” are acting in their capacity to benefit their employers.
11. Spamhaus/SPEWS has, as described below, constantly interfered with my lawful computer system and its operation, and they have or damaged that system, or its operation, in several ways.  These attacks, separately and aggregately, I have discovered, violate both Federal and State laws.
12. In US law – these attacks are a violation of title 18, United States Code Sections 1030 (Fraud and related activity in relation to a computer),  371 (Conspiracy to commit offense), 241 (Conspiracy against rights), 875(d) (Interstate communications),   1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television), 1951 (Interference with commerce by threats or violence), 1952 (Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises).
13. In State law – these acts are a violation of State of California Penal Code Section 502 (c) (3), (5) (Computer Crimes) and 518-524 (Extortion), and Missouri Revised Statutes 569.090(1) (Tampering) and 569.097 (Tampering with computer equipment).
14. Since I am based in California it is important to note that CPC 502 (Computer Crimes) makes it a crime, in California, to interfere, damage, etc., “lawfully created computer data and computer systems.”  My system fits this definition.
15. 15.   The Background:  In 2003 the US Congress passed a law called the “Can-Spam Act of 2003.” That law defined what could, and could not, be done with“commercial” email broadcasting on the internet within the United States. The law is specific.  The enforcement of the law was handed over to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
16. The Can-Spam Act of 2003 was designed to regulate only one kind of email broadcasting – “commercial” email broadcasting, and there was no intent, and the FTC has taken great pains to explain that the Act, and its enforcement of the Act, does not, and will not seek to regulate “free speech,” only “commercial speech,” and then only certain kinds of “commercial speech.”
17. However, “Spamhaus/SPEWS,” after failing to convince the US Congress to make the anti-spam law much more to their liking (much more restrictive) is enforcing their version of the law – thereby intentionally denying, and infringing on, the rights of Americans.  Spamhaus/SPEWS claims that any bulk email broadcasting that isn’t “opt-in only” is a criminal act – and of course, by US, and most nation’s law, that’s simply not true.  Their bellicose, and rejected by ALL governments, argument is that “no one should get an email they didn’t specifically ask for…”
18. The leaders of the “anti-spammer vigilantes” are presented by several so-called “blocklist” providers.  A “blocklist” is a device that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) subscribe to that “supposedly” is a list of “criminal spammer’s” (i.e.; violators of the US Can-Spam Act).  That list is organized by the IP addresses (of the so-called spammers). ISPs that subscribe to those “blocklists” then block those “spammer” IPs on that list from delivering mail to their own customers – supposedly keeping criminal spam away from the ISPs own customers.
19. Ideally, this system should have some merit, but where it falls down is that the “blocklist” providers DO NOT use the US legal definition of “spam” to “block” IPs – they use their own – and they make that definition up as they go along – still calling their victims “criminals.” It is possible with this system to block real spammers, but for the most part it appears they block lawfully operating legitimate businesses from reaching their customers.  Spamhaus alone, claims to block emails to over 500 million recipients.
20. The largest “blocklist” providers are www.spamhaus.org, and www.spews.org They are best known for giving out false, and misleading information.
21. The “Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy,” use two primary Google internet discussion groups for their purposes.  The first called NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email ) is the place where, the policies and attitudes  of the “anti-spammer vigilantes,” can be found.  I collected over a thousand emails from this group, after entering their discussion and asking for information about Spamhaus – and was confronted with sheer “malice,” and “actual malice” for my efforts. I’ll explain below.  In the second discussion group, called NANABl, the participants demanded of my ISP upstream provider that they not only turn off my service, but that they destroy my data, as a condition of having the blocklist removed from all of their customers (details below).
22. Internet Service Providers (ISP)s, who use their “blocklists,” are unaware of these “blocklist” providers intentional deceit.  www.spamhaus.org, for instance, the largest of the “blocklists,” fraudulently labels anyone, and everyone who sends out bulk emails using US Can-Spam Act 2003 guidelines, “criminals.”  US ISPs, having no other source of information on what constitutes “spam” or “not spam” are misled into believing that a “listing” on www.spamhaus.org, or the other vigilante“blocklists,” indicates that the “listee” is a “criminal” and reacts accordingly, destroying honest businesses, and organizations’ ability to communicate, via email with their customers or constituents.
23. Moreover, ISPs that refuse Spamhaus/SPEWS rules are then, themselves, blocked until they submit to Spamhaus/SPEWS will.
24. 24.   In effect, businesses, and organizations in the US, are victimized, put on trial by a secret organization, with no legitimate due process, and destroyed, overnight, on the whim of a hidden group of vigilantes.  I’m one of those victims.
25. 25.   In California, however, this action by those vigilantes, is a crime – either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on what they do.  In Missouri, where my previous server was shut down, these actions are also crimes.
26. 26.   The State of California last passed a revision to the California Penal Code Section 502 (Computer Crimes) in 2002.  The latest revision makes it a crime, in California, to interfere, damage, etc., “lawfully created computer data and computer systems.”  And that’s just what the vigilantes are doing every time they interfere with a lawful system in California.  California Penal Code Section (CPC) 502 (Computer Crimes) says, in its introduction:

(a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to expand the degree of protection afforded to individuals, businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems. The Legislature finds and declares that the proliferation of computer technology has resulted in a concomitant proliferation of computer crime and other forms of unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and computer data.

The Legislature further finds and declares that protection of the integrity of all types and forms of lawfully created computers, computer systems, and computer data is vital to the protection of the privacy of individuals as well as to the well-being of financial institutions, business concerns, governmental agencies, and others within this state that lawfully utilize those computers, computer systems, and data.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense

(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.

(d)(1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of paragraph (1), (2), (4), or (5) of subdivision (c) is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

27. Missouri Revised Statutes (MRS) Chapter 569.097 (Computer Crimes) says:

Tampering with computer equipment, penalties.

569.097. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with computer equipment if he knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization:

(2) Modifies, destroys, damages, or takes any computer, computer system, or computer network.

2. Tampering with computer equipment is a class A misdemeanor, unless:

(1) The offense is committed for the purpose of executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain any property, the value of which is five hundred dollars or more, in which case it is a class D felony; or (2) The damage to such computer equipment or to the computer, computer system, or computer network is five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars, in which case it is a class D felony; or (3) The damage to such computer equipment or to the computer, computer system, or computer network is one thousand dollars or greater, in which case it is a class C felony.

28. And, Missouri Revised Statutes (MRS) Chapter 569.090 says:

Tampering in the second degree.

569.090. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering in the second degree if he or she:

(1) Tampers with property of another for the purpose of causing substantial inconvenience to that person or to another.

3. Tampering in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor unless:

(1) Committed as a second or subsequent violation of subdivision (4) of subsection 1, in which case it is a class D felony;

(2) The defendant has a prior conviction or has had a prior finding of guilt pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision (3) of subsection 3 of section 570.030, RSMo, section 570.080, RSMo, or subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class C felony.

 

28. The First Round of Criminal Acts:
29. CPC 502 Violation (Count 1) and 18 USC 1030 (Count 1):  On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.
30. 30.   The other seven businesses, according to the owners of Wholesale Internet, were all “Can-Spam compliant” email marketers, and I was a non-commercial email newsletter.  My server at Wholesale Internet was part of my lawfully created computer data and computer systems,” which began in California, was controlled from California, and reported back to my California system.   This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(5).
31. 31.   MRS Violation Chapter 569.097 (Counts 1 through 12,000) On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.
32. 32.   The other seven businesses, according to the owners of Wholesale Internet, were all “Can-Spam compliant” email marketers, and I was a non-commercial email newsletter.  My server, in Missouri, at Wholesale Internet was part of my lawfully created computer data and computer systems,” which began in California, was controlled from California, and reported back to my California system.  The System, in fact, begins on my desk.  This action by Spamhaus violates MRS Chapter 569.097.
33. MRS Violation Chapter 569.090 (Counts 12,001 through 24,001) On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.  This action by Spamhaus violates MRS Chapter 569.090.
34. CPC 502 Violation (Count 2) On, or about February 10th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus, through their representative “HH” re-listed me, after my complaint to them, on their “blocklists,” and announced to the world, in sheer “malice”  that I was, in their words “a fruitcake.”  They said:

patrick timothy bolen – healthcare-alliance.com

Fruitcakes get a bad rap. Being a fruitcake is all very well, as is telling people about it, and even being given as an unsolicited gift at Christmas time is okay.

However, unsolicited email to get people to read your fruitcake recipies is not acceptable. Opt-OUT is not an option, not even for fruit.

33. They then, out of sheer “malice” added links to my political opposites, as follows:

About Patrick Timothy Bolen About the listee by a respected M.D. About the listee by a respected Canadian M.D. Tim Bolen’s own site 1 and 2 newer About the listee, by the listee. Choose which one to believe. Exercise jurisprudence when doing so.

34. This “blocking” caused an unknown percentage of my subscribers (we think about 20%) NOT to receive my newsletter – as their customer ISPs, not knowing of Spamhaus’s fraudulent statements, blocked my broadcast IP addresses. This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(5). and (8).
35. CPC 502 Violations (Count 3 through 13) On, or about February 10th, February 23, March 9th, March 24th, April 17th, May 1st, May 22nd, May 31st, June 4th,  June 8th,  and June 27th, 2006 the group calling itself Spamhaus continued to operate, despite demands and warnings, an illegal “blocklist “ of my email broadcast IP addresses – falsely informing their ISP customers that I was a “criminal spammer.”  Each “blocking” of my broadcasts increased our broadcast time, from a normal seven hours to 20 hours, using up our lawful computer services in violation of CPC 502 (c) (3) and (5). In addition, about 20% of our total subscriber base was blocked – so, each time, about 57,000 of our lawful subscribers were not receiving their newsletters.  We had many complaints.  This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(3)and (5).
36. CPC 502 Violations (Counts14 through 627,013) –  As noted above, approximately 57,000 (or more) of our subscribers were denied their lawful newsletter each time the broadcast went out, due to Spamhaus’s illegal “blocking,” not allowing us to connect with our lawful subscribers, each time.  There were eleven broadcasts during this period for a total of 627,000 individual violations of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
37. Between the Rounds of Criminal Acts:
38. Having no success at convincing Spamhaus, and its volunteers to leave me alone,  I decided to gather information for a legal action against Spamhaus, and those volunteers in California.  To accomplish this I entered the discussion on the NANAE newsgroup, asking for information on Spamhaus’s alleged “volunteers,” etc.  I received over a thousand responses, a significant number of which any reasonable person would have to conclude were “hate mail.”  More importantly  I received promises and threats of additional actions against my interests – clearly in retaliation for my request for information.
39. CPC 502 Violation (Counts 627,014 through 628,614) – On, or about, July 14th, 2006, my Internet Service provider Black Lotus Communications was notified by its provider Staminus Communications that my account was to be turned off by the end of the month.  The SPEWS segment of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy had blocked all 1,600 of Staminus’s customers email IPs demanding that Staminus not only shut down my service, but that Staminus destroy my websites, and my data, as a condition of removing the email blocks. these “blocks” prevented Staminus’s customers from accessing emails all around the world. These 1,600 acts by Spamhaus/SPEWS are each a violation of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
40. CPC 502 Violation (Counts 628,614 through 628,615) – On, or about, July 14th, 2006, my Internet Service provider Black Lotus Communications was notified by its provider Staminus Communications that my account was to be turned off by the end of the month.  The SPEWS segment of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy had blocked all 1,600 of Staminus’s customers email IPs demanding that Staminus not only shut down my service, but that Staminus destroy my websites, and my data, as a condition of removing the email blocks. these “blocks” prevented Staminus’s customers from accessing emails all around the world.  Staminus immediately limited my server activity, and shut me down as of July 26th, 2006.  This act by SPEWS is a violation of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
41. Spamhaus/SPEWS – the Ku Klux Klan of the Internet – The most important facet of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy is their use of anonymity as a tool to create fear in those they intend to dominate.  I believe that there is little, or no, difference between the tactics employed by the Spamhaus/SPEWS “vigilantes,” and the infamous North American Ku Klux Klan.  In both cases, the intent is, and was, to dominate by fear.
42. In the heydays of the Klan an innocent family, who happened to be of color, religion, race, or political belief (something different from the Klan members) would suddenly, in the middle of the night, be confronted in their home with gunfire, a burning cross in their yard, and a group of screaming individuals covered in white-sheets-with-eyeholes.  The family would be dragged out into the yard, the women raped, the men cut up, and their remains hung from a tree – all, supposedly, because the family had, somehow, broken some “unwritten law” this group of vigilantes wanted enforced.
43. It is exactly the same situation with the Spamhaus/SPEWS vigilante conspiracy.  The anonymity provided by “fake” email addresses has enabled the exact same type of behavior by the “vigilantes.” The white-sheets-with-eyeholes, the anonymity, has created a whole new class of criminal behavior on the internet.  This anonymity is the basis for the anti-spammer vigilante operation, attempting to enforce their own “unwritten laws.”
44. The best singular example of the operation of the combined Spamhaus/SPEWS criminal conspiracy is to examine the process that SPEWS uses to harass its victims.  First, no one knows who SPEWS actually is, nor who its members are, nor who they represent.  Everything about it is hidden, including location of its offices, names of its directors and employees, location of its website, and who funds it.  Worse, when SPEWS lists a victim on its blacklist there is no way to contact SPEWS, no place for an attorney to send a certified letter demanding removal.  More, SPEWS will NOT communicate directly with a victim. The only contact is for the victim’s ISP to go on one, or both, of those google news groups (NANAE, or NANABl) and ask to be removed from the blacklist.  The members of those groups use “fake”internet email addresses (white-sheets-with-eyeholes) to communicate with the ISP victim, then using foul language, suggestions of odd sexual activity, and any number of ugly, improper techniques to create fear.
45. In the case, my case, of SPEWS attacking Staminus to get them to turn me off (criminal extortion), Staminus had a real fear of losing all, or most, of their 1,600 customers, because SPEWS was blocking each, and every, of Staminus’s customer IP addresses, and falsely stating to those customers, that Staminus was hosting a“criminal spammer.”  Staminus, a small provider, was in mortal danger of going bankrupt, and losing their entire business to a group who, in essence, is the internet equivalent of the KU Klux Klan.  During the process where Staminus was communicating with SPEWS via the NANABl news list, SPEWS members were demanding that Staminus itself, commit a criminal felony as a condition of having the blacklist removed.  SPEWS was demanding that Staminus destroy my websites, and my information.  I was watching this email exchange, and when this demand was made I immediately demanded the identity of the SPEWS representatives, but was refused admission to the discussion and referred to two other websites described as “the rules.” Both of those websites were owned, and controlled, by Scott Hazen Mueller, the Board Chairman of CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email), and a Systems Administrator at Cal State Northridge.
46. Spamhaus’s method of dealing with complainants is to deter them with a claim that they are based in the UK, and that if a legal action is filed it has to be filed there in the UK, and that the complainant would have to put up all of the money for Spamhaus’s defense into the equivalent of an “escrow account.“
47. Spamhaus and SPEWS, although claiming to be separate, I believe, are the same group of people.  There is good reason to suspect that the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE), or certain of its leadership, may be part of the same criminal conspiracy.
48. The intent of the Spamhaus/SPEWS criminal conspiracy is far more ominous than the Ku Klux Klan ever thought to be, for there is a second, and even more important reason for the “anonymity” – the personal business interests of the “vigilantes.” The intent of the conspiracy is simple – complete control over who gets to say what, to who, on the internet, “  They want complete, and total, control over internet email broadcasting.  Their campaigns, and their actions against their victims, makes that clear.
49. In the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy there are two targets:  (1)  “Free speech” groups – Spamhaus/SPEWS wants to be able to control what information is available to the public, and (2) small internet e-marketing companies that compete with the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy’s secret members’ own business interests.
50. Right from the beginning of my investigation I found that the primary players in the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy all had connections, or ownership, of supposedly “approved” e-marketing operations – and that the victim targets they were shutting down, or forcing to be shut down, represented competition to those business interests.
51. Summary of Criminal Activity – In essence, the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy has committed, in the issues surrounding their attack on me, 628,615 individual violations of State of California Penal Code Section 502 (c) (3), (5) (Computer Crimes) and 518-524 (Extortion), 24,001 individual violations of Missouri “tampering”crimes –  569.090(1) (Tampering) and 569.097 (Tampering with computer equipment), and a smorgasbord of Federal violations including violation(s) of title 18, United States Code Sections  241 (Conspiracy against rights), 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 875(d) (Interstate communications), 1030(Fraud and related activity in relation to a computer), 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television), 1951 (Interference with commerce by threats or violence), 1952(Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises).
52. More, the Spamhaus/SPEWS vigilantes have so damaged my reputation that when I complained to a Colorado State University Department head about the activities, on University time and using University facilities, of one of the SPEWS leaders (who calls himself “Some Bastard,” ) I traced, his response was:

Mr. Bolen – I can not take you seriously as your poor reputation, well publicized on the internet, precedes you.

59. “Some Bastard” was the Spamhaus/SPEWS representative who demanded that my ISP destroy my websites and all my data as a condition of having the SPEWS blocklist against all of their 1,600 customers lifted.
60. Worse, my newsletter is just one of thousands of annual victims of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy in the United States, alone.

 

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

 

I’m about to tell you about one of the most important cases in US healthcare, an assault, and a turning point – the prosecution of a Northwestern Indiana cutting-edge Doctor of Osteopathy, Wilbert C. (Cal) Streeter.

Although few have ever heard of the Streeter case, it, of itself, and of its result, make it a landmark.  The case began, roughly, in 1996, as the result of certain pressures put on the government by the nefarious “quackbuster”  operation, and it is still going on – but has taken an entirely different, and interesting turn.  Continue reading The “Cal Streeter” Story…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

 

Below is an interesting Press Release sent to top “quackbuster”  Stephen Barrett, the author of the dubious website, “quackwatch.org’s” local newspaper.  But before I let you see that, I want to explain what happened in this case.

In short – Stephen Barrett’s claims that I, Tim Bolen, and those people re-posting, or quoting my articles, allegedly having “defamed” him, have now been thoroughly examined in a Court of Law – and Barrett’s claims, within that Court of Law, in his own home town of Allentown, Pennsylvania – a Court of Barrett’s own choice, have been determined to have no merit.

Specifically, Barrett had sued Koren for repeating my words “delicensed” and “quackpot.”  The Judge specifically ruled that these words were not defamatory to Barrett – and threw out Barrett’s case against Koren.  Completely.
Continue reading More about – Quackbuster Barrett BROKEN in “Home Town” Court…

Will the California legislature destroy Aetna insurance?  Probably.  It’s in the works.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

SB 840 (Senate Bill 840), a proposal to destroy ALL health insurance providers within California, and replace them with a State run system has already passed the California Senate with a vote of 25 to 15.  The measure is headed for the California House where it will come up for a vote in November of this year.

Shocked?  I’m not.

The health insurance industry brought this on themselves.  Frankly, they deserve to get shut down.  They are a pall on America.  They, in a macrocosm, represent EVERYTHING wrong with health care in the US.  The US, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) ranks seventy-second (72) in health care, with countries like Morocco, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, etc., rating higher in quality.  But, of course, the US ranks #1 (Number one) in health care costs.  Continue reading Will California Destroy Aetna Insurance?…

The American medical system is broken. And, it isn’t worth fixing. Americans know that, and perhaps, without conscious thought, are abandoning it for “alternatives,” in droves.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

The National Science Foundation, a few years ago, issued a report that shocked the medical industry. It said, simply, that 88% of adult Americans believed in, and used, some form of “alternative” to medicine. As early as 1998 reports showed that half of the total US health dollar was being spent on “alternatives.” Even more shocking to industry was the fact that, not only were Americans using those “alternatives,” but they were paying for them out-of pocket – because neither insurance, nor Medicare, would pay for them. Americans bought them anyway.

Obviously, there is a paradigm shift happening. Thank God for that. Continue reading Aetna Insurance: Will the “Cavitat” Case Take The Company Down?…

New Ruling Would Put Admitted Amalgam Hazard into“Case Law”

By Leo Cashman

 

After a six-year journey through the court system, the case of Dr. David Barnes, DDS v. Kerr Corporation, the nation’s largest amalgam manufacturer, appears to be a sad defeat: the trial court granted Kerr’s motion for summary judgment, and this ruling was recently affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While our sympathies go out to Dr. David E. Barnes, the Tennessee dentist who had been injured by his daily occupational exposure to amalgam/mercury, there appears to be a silver lining: the federal appellate court recognized the dangers of mercury amalgams and declared that the manufacturer provided a clear and unqualified warning that its product – amalgam – is very dangerous! The appellate court’s opinion is recommended for publication, which would make the decision binding legal precedent.  The potential consequences of this ruling are fascinating.

Barnes, who used mercury amalgam fillings for the first ten years of his practice, alleged that he had been poisoned by the mercury in the amalgam fillings that he placed and removed on a daily basis.  In 1999, Dr Barnes brought a products liability case against Kerr Corporation, the manufacturer of the only amalgam products Barnes ever purchased.  Barnes retained Jim Love and Robert Reeves, attorneys most knowledgeable about mercury amalgams, to represent him. Dr. Mark Richardson, PhD, F.L. Lorscheider, Ph.D., Gary Ordog, M.D., Robert Granacher, M.D., George Colpitts, D.D.S., and other expert witnesses testified on Dr. Barnes’s behalf concerning the various scientific, medical, and dental issues that arose in the case. Kerr challenged the admissibility of Dr. Barnes’s scientific and medical testimony on the basis that it was not supported by valid and reliable published science.  However, the trial court ruled that the supporting science was valid and reliable and overruled Kerr’s motion.

Kerr filed an ensuing motion for summary judgment claiming that its warnings were adequate as a matter of law.  Kerr also argued that the vast majority of Barnes’s exposure was not attributable to Kerr’s products, but to amalgam fillings that Barnes removed.  Because the appearance of an amalgam filling will not reveal the filling’s manufacturer, Kerr argued that Barnes could not prove that Kerr’s products actually injured Barnes.  The District Court granted Kerr’s motion.  The judgment was appealed to the 6^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but on August 11^th, 2005, the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling.

If the Sixth Circuit Court’s opinion is published, Barnes v. Kerr may profoundly change the legal landscape regarding amalgam.  Barnes argued that Kerr’s warnings addressed only mercury—not mixed dental amalgam.  Barnes admitted that he was aware of mercury’s toxicity, but testified that in dental school, he was taught that mixed dental amalgam was safe and the mercury rendered inert.  However, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion held that the warning sufficiently notified Barnes that mixed dental amalgam was dangerous.  The Court noted, “the label on each jar of dental amalgam capsules featured not only a skull and crossbones next to the word “Poison,” but also a list of illnesses, including “bronchiiolitis, pneumonitis, pulmonary edema [and] redness and irritation to [the] eyes and skin.” Likewise, the Court noted, the MSDS (material safety data sheet,  provided to all dentist buyers) warned that chronic mercury exposure could lead to “nervous irritability, weakness, tremors, gingivitis, erethism and graying of the lens of the eye.” Further, the Court ruled that the other ingredients mixed in amalgam with the mercury – silver, copper and tin – are not claimed by the manufacturer to “neutralize the danger while the dentist is working with the product.”

Attorney Jim Love filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which requests a rehearing before all of the judges sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court.  Such a remedy is normally disfavored.  If the ruling stands as written, it will become legal precedent.  The consequences of this ruling may include the following:

1)      Under the “learned intermediary” doctrine, dentists are obligated to pass along manufacturer’s warnings to their patients.  In light of the ruling in Barnes v. Kerr, dentists will be required to explain to their patients the dangers acknowledged in Kerr’s warnings.

2)      Arguably, state dental boards will no longer be able to prohibit dentists from communicating the dangers of mercury amalgam to their patients.

3)      In order for a dentist to obtain a patient’s informed consent, the information given to a patient concerning amalgam will change very dramatically.

4)      The Court’s opinion will provide a direct challenge to the ADA’s proclamations of amalgam safety.

5)      In formulating a successful legal strategy, Kerr may have impaired the market for its dental amalgam product.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

 

Several State of South Carolina employees, a County Coroner, a County Medical Examiner, an Oncologist, a self-styled CAM “lite” practitioner, a private practice attorney, and a newspaper reporter, found out, THE HARD WAY, last Thursday, November 18th, 2004, why it it’s a really BAD idea to rely on any information sucked out of the internet site calling itself “quackwatch.com.” 

A South Carolina Judge explained it all to them… Continue reading The Long Story About Jim Shortt…..

Carol C. Lam

United States Attorney for the Southern District of California

Federal Office Building
880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, California 92101-8893+

Via FAX – 619-557-5749

Tuesday, April 14, 2004

 

It has been brought to my attention that there is an investigation going on, conducted by your office, with the possibility of further investigation by the San Diego Federal Grand Jury, concerning my activities.  The prosecutor assigned to this case is, I believe, Melanie Pierson. There is the suggestion, in the investigation, that my work is somehow a “fraud” designed to sell health products.

For your office to suggest that my life’s work is fraud is beyond comprehension. My research investigations are an open book. In fact, there are FIVE open books.  I have achieved significant results in determining the causes of chronic disease, including cancer, AIDS, and other diseases.  In fact, I have tried hard to put the ideas in my books in the public domain. This includes patentable materials worth considerable revenues. This “public domain” approach is seldom used but worthy of my training and religious heritage. I know that my contribution will benefit the USA and all of society immeasurably.

With this letter, I am inviting you to visit me, and view my work at the medical facility known as “Century Nutrition” in Tijuana, Mexico on a date of your choosing..  Several patients of the facility will be available for interview between 10 and 4.at that time.

I am an independent research scientist, and author of five books, sold in many different languages, concerned with, and offering theories about, the current health crisis, and dilemmas, in the North American Health Care System.  My writings are controversial in American society, and have been both highly praised in one sector, and have raised the hackles of certain members of the conventional medical system.

The controversy over my books is centered on several ideas.  (1)  I believe that the medical system needs to move away from the “treatment” modality into finding “cures” for health problems.  To me, “treatment” deals with managing symptoms, and “cures” deal with determining, and removing, the “causes” of problems.  Four of my books are built on this idea – “The Cure for Advanced Cancer, The Cure for All Cancers, The Cure for All Diseases, The Cure for HIV/AIDS.”  Each of these books expounds on the idea that the cause, or source, of the problem must be found and eliminated.  Such a process has the definition of a “cure” not a “treatment,” because it is scientifically correct.  (2)  I believe in “self health.”  My books are written to educate and instruct the general public about how the human body functions, and how to deal with daily activities, including crises.  I point out, as Native Americans have for centuries, that we, as humans, are interdependent with our environment.  I show people how to manage that interdependence.  (3)  I have invented a testing device, still in manual operation stages, which I call a Syncrometer, that assists me in finding certain elements, at specific locations in the human body, which may be related to the “cause” of problems.  I teach the general public how to make, and use, this device, and encourage improvements.  (4)  I have invented a device, still in exploratory stages, which I call the Zapper. I teach the general public how to make, and use, this device, and encourage improvements.  (5)  I have created the new science of Homeography, which is the electronic analog of homeopathy.  I teach this also.  The results can be quite astounding.

As you know, the health system in the USA is being challenged on new frontiers and my training in both Biology and Radio Technology has given me a unique advantage I would like to pass on to others, who can be interested. My findings and my success rates are phenomenal. In fact those findings open more than one new horizon in both biology and technology. I work every day to find answers to our health dilemmas. I have devoted my life to this cause because my background and education is unique, giving me this responsibility.

To hear with your own ears, and see with your own eyes, what I do and to talk to the patients who are currently present at Century Nutrition for treatment, I cordially invite you to visit us. We are just a few blocks from the border, within walking distance.

Any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday would be a suitable day, since these are patient days.I will write a Memo on Tuesday to all the patients about this. You are welcome to bring media with you.  Our Doctor (M.D.) will be available so you can see every aspect of our treatment and testing. Maybe it will fascinate you, as it does us, to see the Syncrometer at work, our doctor’s Homeopathy skills, as well as my homeography, and electronic counterparts to bring about permanent cures, never before seen.

May I have the pleasure of your visit? The patients will be in the lobby, giving you free access.  I look forward to our meeting.,

Best Regards

Hulda Regehr Clark, PhD

Century Nutrition

Tijuana, Mexico

011-52664-5828215

 

cc:  Melanie Pierson

 

 

THE ALLIANCE OF NATURAL HEALTH SUPPLIERS INC.

AND

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE INC.

 

Plaintiffs

 

– and –

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA and

the MINISTER OF HEALTH OF CANADA

 

Defendants

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

TO THE DEFENDANTS:

 

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Plaintiffs.  The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

 

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you are required to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171B prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, 1998, serve it on the plaintiff’s solicitor or, where the plaintiff does not have a solicitor, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of this Court, WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served within Canada.

 

If you are served in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days.  If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is sixty days.

 

Copies of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-922-4238) or at any local office.

 

 

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

 

Dated this                day of June, 2004.

 

 

Issued by:                             (Registry Officer)

 

Address of local office:  PO Box 10065, 701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1B6.

 

TO:  Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada

c/o The Attorney General of Canada

Deputy General of Canada’s Office

284 Wellington Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0H8

 

TO:  The Minister of Health

Tunney’s Pastor

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0K9

 

 

 

CLAIM

 

1. The Plaintiffs claim:

 

(a)  a declaration that the definition of “drug” found in section 2 of the Food and Drug Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, is overly broad so as to take the application of the Act beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament set out in s. 91 of theConstitution Act, 1867.  Following a declaration that the definition of “drug” is overly broad, the Plaintiffs will be seeking to have the definition read down to exclude substances such as food and dietary supplements/natural health products that do not pose a health risk and consequently do not engage Parliament’s jurisdiction under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;

 

(b)  a declaration that the definition of “drug” found in section 2 of the Food and Drug Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, does not include substances such as food and dietary supplements/natural health products that do not pose a health risk and consequently do not engage Parliament’s jurisdiction to regulate in the area of health under the Constitution Act, 1867;

 

(c)             a declaration that the definition of “drug” found in section 2 of the Food and Drug Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, does not include food and dietary supplements/natural health products on the basis that Parliament never intended the definition of “drug” to apply to such substances;

 

(d)             a declaration that the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 enacted pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, are ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and as such are contrary to sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;

 

(e)             a declaration that the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 enacted pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, are ultra vires the Governor General in Council;

 

(f)             a declaration that the definition of “drug” found in section 2 of the Food and Drug Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27, is overly broad and should be declared void for vagueness and/or for a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

 

(g)             an order striking down subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27 as unconstitutional for violating the Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of expression as guaranteed by subsection 2(b) of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

 

(h)             an order striking down subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27 as unconstitutional for violating s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that the effect of the subsections is to deny Canadians personal choice in the area of personal health and medical care;

 

(i)             costs on a solicitor and client basis, and

 

(j)             such further relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.

 

The grounds for the Plaintiffs’ claims are:

 

1. the definition of “drug” found in s. 2 of the Food and Drug Act, RSC 1985 c. F-27 (the “Act”), is so broad as to include “any substance or mixture of substances” for which health claims are made regardless of whether the substances can be reasonably expected to pose a health risk to Canadians.  For example, substances such as water, fruit and vegetables are “drugs” under the Act if health claims are made despite the fact that they cannot reasonably be expected to pose health risks to Canadians if regulated as “food” under the Act;

 

2. insofar as the overly broad definition of “drug” in the Act extends to substances that cannot reasonably be expected to pose any health risk to Canadians, it does not fall within Parliament’s criminal law power.  The applicant does not take issue with Parliament’s jurisdiction to regulate substances such as foods to protect against adulteration and to enforce standards of purity to protect against harm as is done for “foods” under the Act;

 

3. insofar as the overly broad definition of “drug” in the Act extends to substances that cannot reasonably be expected to pose a health risk to Canadians, it does not fall within Parliament’s emergency power under the head of peace order and good government;

 

4. because the definition of “drug” is overly broad so as to engage the Act in areas beyond Parliament’s jurisdiction, the definition should be read down to exclude substances such as food and dietary supplements/natural health products that do not pose a health risk and consequently do not engage Parliament’s jurisdiction to regulate in the area of health;

 

5. the Parliamentary debates surrounding the Act make it clear that Parliament never intended the definition of “drug” to apply to substances such as food and dietary supplements/natural health products;

 

6. the Minister of Health’s historic enforcement of the Act makes it clear that Parliament never intended the definition of “drug” to apply to substances such as food and dietary supplements/natural health products;

 

7. the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 purport to regulate natural health products.  The overwhelming majority of Natural Health Products as defined by the Regulations pose no or only a de minimis health risk to Canadians;

 

8. Parliament has the jurisdiction to regulate any product that has a potential health risk.  Parliament cannot extend this jurisdiction to products which pose no or only a de minimis health risk.  The Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 are ultra vires the jurisdiction of Parliament;

 

9. the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 impose product licence, site licence, manufacturing, storing and labelling requirements for natural health products.  Parliament has not given or delegated legislative authority under the provisions of the Act to create regulations that propound a scheme for imposing these requirements on natural health products;

 

10. the definition of “natural health product” in the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 is ultra vires the Governor General in Council;

 

11. the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196 are ultra vires the Governor General in Council in that they purport to apply to a subset of drug that goes beyond the definition of “drug” as found in the Act;

 

12. the definition of “drug” in the Act does not differentiate between pharmaceutical formulations and natural health products, and as such has the potential to obstruct Canadians’, including the Plaintiffs’, access to foods and dietary supplements/natural health products that have beneficial health effects;

 

13. the definition of “drug” found at section 2 of the Act is overly broad and should be declared void for vagueness and a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”);

 

14. this vagueness has created the situation where the regulatory body, Health Canada, has demonstrated confusion as to whether natural health products are “drugs” under the Act;

 

15. this vagueness has created the situation where Canadians do not know which natural health products will be treated by Health Canada as “drugs” at any given time;

 

16. this vagueness and the overly broad nature of the definition of “drug” has created the situation that when Health Canada decides to treat a natural health product as a drug because of Schedule “A” health claims, a conviction under s. 3 of the Act will automatically follow;

 

17. the violation of s. 7 of the Charter cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter;

 

18. subsection 3(1) of the Act prohibits all advertising to the general public of any treatment, preventative or cure for any condition listed in Schedule A of the Act;

 

19. subsection 3(2) of the Act prohibits all selling of foods or drugs where there is any representation by label or advertisement to the general public that the food or drug is a treatment, preventative or cure for any conditions listed in Schedule A of the Act;

 

20. the purpose of subsections 3(1) and 3(2) is to limit freedom of expression;

 

21. the effect of subsections 3(1) and 3(2) is to limit freedom of expression;

 

22. the violation of freedom of expression caused by subsections 3(1) and 3(2) cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter;

 

23. one of the purposes behind subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act is to ensure that Canadians seek “proper” medical treatment for the conditions listed in Schedule A.  “Proper” medical treatment means treatment by a medical doctor;

 

24. “proper” medical treatment is not without risks.  One of the leading causes of death in Canada, if not the leading cause of death, is “proper” medical treatment;

 

25. there are numerous dietary supplements/natural health products that are effective in the safe treatment, mitigation or prevention of the conditions listed in Schedule A of the Act;

 

26. the right to make personal choices in the area of personal health and medical care is a right guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter;

 

27. Canadians cannot choose to take dietary supplements/natural health products for conditions listed in Schedule A, because subsections 3(1) and 3(2) prohibit the advertising necessary to educate Canadians about the products;

 

28. the absence of choice caused by subsections 3(1) and 3(2) forces Canadians to assume the risk of “proper” medical treatment;

 

29. this violation of s. 7 and the harm it causes cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter;

 

30. the Plaintiffs rely on sections 1, 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2, 3 and 17 of the Federal Court Act, RSC 1985 c. F-7, and rules 61, 62, 63, and 64 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.

 

The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at 701 West Georgia Street in Vancouver, British Columbia.

 

 

Dated this 21st day of June, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                          

Shawn P. Buckley

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

 

Buckley & Company

201 – 444 St. Paul Street

Kamloops, B.C.

V2C 2J6

Phone:  (250) 372-1404

Fax:  (250) 374-5800

 

 

 

Court File No.

 

Action

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

BETWEEN:

 

THE ALLIANCE OF NATURAL HEALTH SUPPLIERS INC.

AND

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE INC.

 

 

Plaintiffs

 

– and –

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA and

the MINISTER OF HEALTH OF CANADA

 

Defendants

 

 

 

 

 

                                                             

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

                                                                    

 

 

 

 

 

Buckley & Company

                      201 – 444 St. Paul Street

                       Kamloops, B.C., V2C 2

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE = P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI  53707-7882

July 16, 2003                                                                            FOR IMMEDIATE ReLEASE

For more information, contact:

Rep. Sheryl Albers 608-266-853

Sen. Dale Schultz 608-266-0703

 

Schultz, Albers Blast Chelation Therapy Witch Hunt

State Agency Spends $50,000 On “Expert” Witness With Suspect Background

 

State Capitol – Sen. Dale Schultz (R – Richland Center) and Rep. Sheryl Albers (R – Reedsburg) questioned today the legitimacy of a disciplinary process underway against a state doctor using alternative therapies to treat patients.

The Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) is currently in the middle of disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Eleazar Kadile, in part for using chelation therapy as an alternative treatment for patients with heart disease.  Similar arguments have been levied at LaValle resident Dr. Robert Waters, who runs the Waters Preventative Medicine Center in Wisconsin Dells.

“We have constituents who swear by this treatment.  If they feel better as a result of it, who are we to take that from them?” said Schultz.  “When it comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-pushers.”

Much of the attention surrounds the state’s expert witness, Dr. Robert Baratz.  Baratz runs the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a non-profit organization based near Boston, Massachusetts.  However, many individuals have questioned his professional credibility.  He has been accused of padding his resume as an expert in alternative medicine so that he can collect fees for testifying before licensing and review boards.  To date, Baratz has received $48,806 in state funds for his services.  According to Christopher Klein, DRL Executive Assistant, Baratz has dropped off an additional stack of invoices to cover his fees for this appearance.  However, it is unclear as to what further payments Baratz will receive from the state.

According to the NCAHF’s 2001 tax return, the non-profit organization reported just $17,967 in contributions, including $13,000 from one individual.  “No matter how big or grand it tries to appear on paper, this organization is hardly a major player in the medical field,” Albers said.

“As taxpayers, we are outraged that a person with such a questionable record has soaked us to the tune of $50,000,” Schultz added.  “We’re paying $50,000 to fly in some character from Boston who has entire websites devoted to questioning his expertise.  Sounds to me like a bad investment of our tax dollars.”

At the request of Dr. Robert Waters, Schultz and Albers have introduced identical bills in the Senate and Assembly to allow physicians who practice chelation therapy to do so without aggressive bureaucrats attacking their credibility. “Dale and I are both aware that studies are still being done as to the effectiveness of chelation therapy for some conditions,” Albers said.  “The FDA licenses chelation therapy for treating lead toxicity.  Dr. Waters provides chelation therapy as one option for his patients and properly informs them of the potential risks.  If people want to spend their hard-earned money on this treatment, why shouldn’t they be able to?”