There shouldn’t have to be a “phase two,” for Doctor Hulda Regher Clark, but then – there shouldn’t have been a “phase one.” But, then, there always was “a plot” to destroy Dr. Clark’s efforts, and the conspirators didn’t give up just because they were humiliated in their attempt to have Dr. Clark falsely imprisoned.

Opinion by Tim Bolen

The second phase of the Clark campaign is broken into two parts (1) dealing with the rest of the conspirator’s attack on Clark, and (2) frankly, we’re looking to put them out of that business… And, if we can prove, the motive and the “deep pockets” behind the so-called “quackbusters,” we’ll get Dr. Clark’s research funded for a very, very, very, very, very long time.

Hulda Clark, and other North American health heros, shouldn’t have to keep looking over their shoulders, wondering when the next vicious attack will happen. Right now they must – for attack is always imminent – against health professionals that spurn the insidious drug lords’ appetites. And, that attack too often originates from a de-licensed MD named Stephen Barrett, working out of his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


What is Barrett doing next (and now)?

Stephen Barrett, on the Quackwatch website, has a huge list of attorneys he would like everyone to believe he has a relationship with. But in reality, it looks to me, he has ONE attorney he uses named Cristopher Grell. Grell operates a one-man office, in downtown San Francisco.

From observing previous work Grell has done for Barrett, it appears Grell is either some sort of sibylline legal genius, or a courtroom dimwit. For reasons outlined below, I lean towards the latter.

Cristopher Grell filed a lawsuit, on behalf of Stephen Barrett, against James Carter, MD, and Hampton Roads Publishing, alleging falsehoods in Dr. Carter’s book “Racketeering In Medicine.” Grell filed the lawsuit, at the last minute, in the wrong state… Of course, the case was dismissed, and since the time had run out to file…

Cristopher Grell filed a lawsuit, on behalf of Stephen Barrett, against Julian Whittaker MD, over an article Doctor Whittaker wrote in “The Townsend Letter” about the “Quacklist.” Grell filed the lawsuit “after” the last minute. The case, of course, was dismissed…

Cristopher Grell has now filed a lawsuit (on behalf of Stephen Barrett?), against Hulda Clark, in the wrong COUNTRY… and more…


Apparently, a woman, Esther Figueroa, a native of Venezuela now living in Brooklyn, who speaks no English, had breast cancer. She had asked an ordained minister for a copy of Clark’s book , and was sent one, by that same minister. The Figueroas contacted (with the husband doing the talking, in English), a health food store in Oklahoma where the owner is an avid Clark supporter. Without invitation one day, the Figueroas, with their seventeen year old son in tow, showed up at the airport in Oklahoma, and called the surprised health food store owner on the telephone, and said “We’re here. Can you come and pick us up?”

The Figueroas, with their son, stayed in the health food store owner’s home for about fifteen days, claiming they had no money – but needed help. From there, they went to Tijuana, Mexico and begged Dr. Clark for help. When Dr. Clark agreed to make them part of her research project, the husband left his wife there with the son, claiming he had “business” back in New York. The husband stated that he wanted Dr. Clark to “get rid of his wife’s breast cancer, because he didn’t want her disfigured by surgery.”

Once the husband “disappeared,” the wife lost interest in Dr. Clark’s protocol. It seemed, all Mrs. Figueroa wanted to know was “Where’s Mr. Figueroa, and what’s he up to?” Not wanting to fully participate in the Clark protocol, mother, and son, left shortly. End of story? You’d think so, right?

Nope – enter Stephen Barrett.

About May of 1999, Barrett’s legal genius (or courtroom dimwit), Cristopher Grell, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco(?) Superior Court against Dr. Clark, and 21 other defendants including the minister that gave Esther Figueroa Clark’s book, and his church. The suit was supposedly filed on behalf of Esther Figueroa and her husband. Clark Team One never new about the lawsuit until January of 2000. Apparently Grell and Barrett were keeping it a secret for some reason – or then, maybe Grell just forgot to tell the defendants they were being sued?

I’d like to tell you what the lawsuit is all about, but, I’ve got to make it clear right now – Cristopher Grell’s “lawsuit writing ability” is just as good as his “lawsuit filing ability.” Frankly, I can’t figure out just what he seems to think is the problem. The suit is terribly written – not to mention that Grell filed against Dr. Clark in the wrong country, David Amrein in the wrong country, the health food store in the wrong state, and the everybody else in the wrong Superior Court jurisdiction… I hear the judge almost threw the whole thing out recently… (and may yet).

It looks to me like lawyer Grell fits the profile I’ve assembled of the “typical quackpot” that Barrett employs as his soldiers – “all of them 36 planks short of a woodpile.”

Then there is the strange way Grell “served,” or “didn’t serve” the defendants (in over a year, most have not been served.). He never even tried to serve Dr. Clark at her research facility in Tijuana, Mexico. He had her served June 4th, 2000 (over a year after Grell originally filed the case) at her “Motion to Dismiss” hearing in Indiana. He served the minister at his church, and he served Geoff Clark in San Diego. But, no one else… Listed on the lawsuit are several people the Clark team hasn’t been able to identify, and a married couple that used to teach “how to cook food according to Hulda Clark.” It’s all a mystery.

I think the California State Bar needs to take a hard look at Grell – like maybe in a competency hearing?.

While you’re pondering the questions above, add one more – “Who’s paying the legal bills that Grell is running up?”

What the Clark legal team has decided to do FIRST, is to file a “Motion to Quash Summons,” since, of course, Dr. Clark’s facility is in Mexico – not San Francisco.

The only success Barrett’s hand-picked legal fireball (sarcasm intended) seems to have had, is when he filed a false complaint in San Diego with the FBI, claiming Dr. Clark was “guilty of health fraud.” Although the FBI declined to proceed, they did find the warrant still active in Indiana – which, we all know, the judge eventually threw out.

The “Motion to Quash Summons” hearing comes up June 26th, 2000 in Superior Court in San Francisco.

Stay Tuned…

Tim Bolen