Court Orders Quackbusters Barrett and Polevoy to Post $433,715.93 Bond…
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Thursday, May 2nd, 2007
The “quackbuster” organization is learning a very HARD lesson about the reality of the US legal system. And, I’m very pleased.
They’re learning, in the most humiliating, and financially devastating way, that US Courts don’t want the system abused to harass those that the “quackbusters” don’t like.
In the Barrett v. Clark case, today, an order was issued for Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to come up with a grand total of $433,715.93 in bonds – $264,311.68 for Polevoy alone, and $169,404.25 from Barret and Polevoy – within thirty days. Barrett runs the questionable website “quackwatch.com.” Polevoy is kind of the Canadian low-budget copy of Barrett, with garish colors.
There are three important parts to what happened:
(1) This is not the kind of bond where some two-bit crook runs down to a bondsman and plops down ten percent of the bond, and gets someone to put up the rest of the money with his Mom’s house as collateral. This is a “full bond”where Barrett and Polevoy will have to walk into the courtroom with cash, CDs, stock certificates, Trust Deeds, etc. I don’t see either Polevoy or Barrett doing this. Barrett hasn’t actually worked as an MD since 1993, and Polevoy runs a “pimple clinic” in a small town in Canada.
(2) The motion for this ruling was “not contested.” Yup, that’s right – “not contested.” Now, I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that the attorney in this matter for Barrett and Polevoy, one Christopher Grell, probably, at this point, has had about all he can take from those two, since, I’d guess, this case has just about cost him his career, his net worth, his office, his reputation, etc. – and he has to know that Barrett is trying to make his own deal without Grell. And, by now, he has to have figured out that Polevoy is at the bottom of the fish tank. morally and ethically.
(3) The Plaintiffs, unless the judgment specifically notes otherwise (and it doesn’t) are jointly, and severally liable for the costs. Which means that, for instance, if Polevoy could manage to avoid his portion of the debt (being in Canada), Barrett and Grell would have to cough up his share of the money. And I’d bet that Polevoy will try and do just that.
The “quackbusters” have been trying, desperately, to raise money for the court actions they’re involved in – both for offense and defense – and they don’t seem to be doing well. One of their supporters, a magician who calls himself “The Amazing Randi,” has vowed to raise money for them – but doesn’t seem to be successful. In short, the “quackbusters'” pleas for money are falling on deaf ears.
Below is the Order from the Court – in it’s entirety. Go ahead and laugh when you read it.
Frankly, the “quackbusters” are going to pay through the nose for this FAKE attack, abusing the US Court System. They were warned, early on, but in their sheer arrogance, and disdain for the forces of good, they elected to persist, apparently trying to grind down the Defendants with sheer nastiness, and oppressive behavior.
So why is this happening, and what does it mean?
In essence, and this may be an over-simplification, but… The threesome described above sued a bunch of people in Oakland, California, including me, Tim Bolen, in a case that, so poorly written, is hard to understand. The theory of the case, after you wend your way through the rhetoric, seemed to be that world-renowned author/scientist Hilda Regehr Clark PhD hired me, Tim Bolen, to “defame” the threesome in some strange, poorly explained, way. Allegedly, other people “Conspired to defame” these three, blah, blah, blah… Why? Click here for more info.
One of those people who allegedly “Conspired to defame” was Ilena Rosenthal, the head of the anti-silicone-breast-implant “Humantics Foundation.” Ilena decided to take them on and hired the attorney, Mark Goldowitz, who originally wrote California’s anti-SLAPP law (explained below) to get her out of the case, correctly. When the Judge agreed to the anti-SLAPP Motion filed, and awarded over $33,000 in attorney fees, the threesome filed an Appeal. The Appeal went all the way to the California Supreme Court where the threesome got legally horsewhipped.
Now, simply said, the threesome owes Ilena Rosenthal all of her attorney fees for the Superior Court action, the Appeal and the California Supreme Court action. And, now, that’s a big pile of cash they owe her – and, of course, she wants it.
So, what is now happening is that “the threesome” will probably try to Appeal the judgment for attorney fees, hoping to try to drag the case out for three more years. Ilena’s legal team asked the Court to force them to put up a bond to continue the legal fight, as the costs will continue to increase, and it is likely that one or more will file bankruptcy over this. The Court agreed. If the threesome wants to continue they’re going to have to put up hard assets, right here, and right now.
California takes a dim view of SLAPP violators…
California’s anti-SLAPP law, designed for just this sort of situation, worked just like it was designed. The anti-SLAPP legislation, whose full title is “anti Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” was designed to stop Plaintiffs from filing scurrilous lawsuits against Defendants just to shut them up on a public issue, by overpowering them with litigation they cannot afford. The law provides for the Defendants, by allowing them to collect their attorney fees from the Plaintiff almost immediately upon winning a Motion to Dismiss. Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell lost their attempt to crush Defendant Rosenthal – and now they don’t, or can’t, pay her attorney fees as the law requires. The trio were able to forestall that original payment only because they appealed the original Judge’s decision to the California Appeals Court, then to the California Supreme Court – where they were soundly, and publicly, horse-whipped.
You can read about what actually happened by clicking on the story – “Quackbusters CRUSHED by California Supreme Court…”
Rosenthal, and her attorney team, are pressing, every moment for collection – as well they should.
The case has become very personal – with Polevoy, apparently trying to frighten, and harass, Rosenthal into giving up. Polevoy, who is known to “stalk” his victims, has apparently hired private detectives to find Rosenthal’s living quarters, and her business interests – and then tells Rosenthal what he now knows about her. Polevoy used this same scare tactic to destroy the radio career of Canadian radio personality Christine McFee. Polevoy, according to Rosenthal, adopted the internet identity “Vera Teasdale,” and others, to harass Rosenthal – bashing her on chat rooms, etc. pretending to be a woman.
All of which just makes Rosenthal, and her legal team, even more eager to collect their money.
So, what about this “stalking” thing Polevoy does?
How do you deal with a “stalker,” like Polevoy? It depends on your personality. I, personally, have legally, and publicly, notified Polevoy that his attentions in this matter are not wanted, and I’ve notified law enforcement of my concerns. So, if he shows up, following me, or any family member of mine around, I have every right, under California Penal Code Section (CPC) 837, to perform what is called a “Citizen’s Arrest.” CPC 837 reads:
- A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
California Penal Code Section 839, 844, and 845 say:
- Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.
- To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be,after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.
So what does all this “Citizen’s Arrest” law mean? It means that if I catch Polevoy stalking me, or any of my family, I keep a ball bat (Louisville Slugger) handy, and I’ll use as much force, to restrain him, or contain him, for arrest, as I, as a reasonable man, feel is necessary, at the time.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate