I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

NEW CENTURY PRESS

New Century Press ('NCP") is a publishing company that specializes in the publication and distribution of books, videos and manuals relating to alternative health therapies. NCP has not, at any time, published or distributed any materials or articles by Tim Bolen.

In this case, what is remarkable is that there is a complete absence of any facts that support any claims against New Century Press. As with many other Barrett lawsuits, this one has been strategically filed for web publication and carries with it the same destructiveness and recklessness of a one sideddrive-by shooting over the internet.

NCP has been inexplicably joined in this lawsuit by way of "Doe" amendment. There is absolutely no basis for the joinder of NCP other than to subject it to negative internet publicity.

It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will attempt to camouflage their lack of evidence against NCP with a bulk of irrelevant internet postings that relate to third parties and have little or nothing to do with NCP ⁽¹⁾. This is typical of the vexatious litigation tactics that Dr. Barrett has been accustomed to promoting.

The main focus of this action, if one can go beyond the magniloquence of Plaintiffs' pleadings, is several editorial opinion internet postings purportedly written by Tim Bolen. There is nothing that has been specifically alleged concerning NCP. The reason for this is that NCP did not participate in the preparation or publication of the articles in question. A careful review of Plaintiffs' Complaint reveals absolutely no charging allegations against NCP. Nothing!!

For this reason, as discussed below, it is respectfully requested that this Court dismiss this case, without leave to amend.

DR. BARRETT vs. DR. CLARK - A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Dr. Clark has been recognized around the world as a scientific pioneer in the advancement of research relating to carcinogenic catalysts. She has published her findings on the dangers of mercury amalgams in tooth fillings and benzene in detergents, plastics, food container and even drugs. All of this to the consternation of the medical establishment. Her findings on parasitic links to certain forms of cancer have been acknowledged by thousands of alternative therapy advocates as the most important revelation concerning countless illnesses that invade the body. She enjoys world wide acclaim for her ongoing work and writings.

Without any basis or clinical research of their own, Dr. Barrett (a de-licensed psychiatrist ⁽²⁾) and Dr. Polevoy (an acne care physician) have focused their unqualified attack on the scientific findings of Dr. Clark. Applying their obviously limited scientific understanding of microbiology and parasitology, they minimize the significance of Dr. Clark's work by addressing only one form of parasite that they, believe is the entirety of her findings. It is almost as if they picked up one of Dr. Clark's books and read the middle page and nothing else, then decided they are experts in the field of parasitology.

These well-known medical militants have used the internet as their national pulpit by which they preach the exclusive validity of traditional medicine to their cult-like followers. Their dogmatic medical mantras are laced with character assassinations and demagoguery to advance their own personal agenda and those of other executioners for traditional medicine.

Frustrated with the hundreds of negative responses that the Plaintiffs have received to their internet campaign, they have now seemingly resorted to the courts as part of their blitzkrieg assault on anyone that is in some way committed to supporting Dr. Hulda Clark.

Recently, countless supporters of Dr. Clark became fed up with the ongoing flood of internet medical narcissism and decided to break their silence and defend the alternative point of view. In essence, the alternative health community has exercised their right of free speech against the narrow-minded prophecies of these "medical mercenaries." This, not surprisingly, has infuriated Dr. Barrett and Dr. Polevoy and the many minions that follow them. As is typical of self-deputized vigilantes, Dr. Barrett and his supporters believe that the protections of the First Amendment only apply to them.

A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES

Even though New Century Press strongly believes that Plaintiffs have filed an utterly frivolous claim, it recognizes that the First Amendment affords all the right to express personal beliefs and opinions.

Most of all, there has been an ongoing debate concerning traditional medicine versus all other therapies. This discussion has been ongoing since the turn of the 20^th century. Thousands of articles, web pages, documentaries, reports and television programs have been devoted to the topic.

With the advent of the internet, the discussion has exponentially expanded to include hundreds of discussion groups conveying information on both sides of the debate.

The advocates of traditional medicine are, typically, well funded and organized practicing or retired physicians and dentists that see alternative therapy as a constant threat to the existing medical and pharmaceutical status quo. They fear that the growing popularity, simplicity and affordability of alternative medicine will erode the significant profits enjoyed by the drug and medical cartels.

In support of their views, the traditionalists engage in constant demagoguery and scare tactics to promote the notion that alternative therapies are killing people. This is ironic since the truth is that the THIRD and FOURTH leading causes of death in the United States are medical incompetence and drugs ⁽³⁾. Not to mention the most expensive ⁽⁴⁾.

The fact is that there is no statistical information which establishes that alternative health therapies are directly responsible for any deaths. However, with respect to traditional medicine, the opposite is true. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that incompetent doctors and drugs are major causes of death in the United States (ahead of AIDS and accidental injuries).

If we were to gather all of these statistics, one could easily come to the conclusion that there is a far greater risk of driving your car to a conventional doctor (as advocated by Dr. Stephen Barrett) and getting prescribed a handful of drugs that may or may not work, rather than just staying at home and working on freeing your body of the toxins that caused the disease in the first place. And, this with the added bonus that your hair will not fall out if you decline traditional medical and pharmaceutical establishment advocated treatments. Not to mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of individuals cannot afford the Barrett advocated treatment in the first place due to lack of insurance, absence of national health care system or HMO denials.

So, why then are Dr. Barrett and Dr. Polevoy so committed to attacking the alternative health care community (who's advocated solution is to cleanse one's body of toxins that are the causes of sickness by taking over-the-counter supplements)? One can only ask who is killing whom here. The alternative health care community strongly believes that chemotherapy is a poison and radiation is a function of nuclear war, not treatment. They are, indeed, sagacious about it. But, even with these strong beliefs, the alternative care community has not invaded the "turf" of traditional profit-oriented medical practitioners. They have respected the traditional modalities as another alternative that one has a constitutional right to elect as a method of treatment. There are no cases of alternative health care advocates or practitioners on a campaign to assassinate the character of traditional medical doctors or have their licenses taken away because they are admittedly administering toxic substances and poisons into live human subjects as a means of therapy.

As with the chicken soup that our mothers gave us to cure our colds, this case is an individual's freedom to select the method of therapy they reflect as more suited for one's own personal needs. In the strictest sense, if one were to adopt all of Dr. Barrett's manifesto, then our mothers would all be put in jail for administering non-FDA approved therapy and practicing medicine without a license. Not the outcome that we would all want in this country.

Certainly, if a traditional medical doctor has pronounced a certain death sentence upon a patient, then that patient should be able to determine the quality of the few remaining days of their life and which remedies they will voluntarily consent to taking, if any at all. This freedom of choice appears to just inspire Dr. Barrett and Dr. Polevoy to vindictive hostility as is demonstrated by this frivolous lawsuit. Something which this court will be eventually asked to take a few steps back and look at.

This is, and will certainly continue to be, the subject of much open discussion in many public soap boxes, including the internet. The discussion is, at times, vigorous and lively. It will stir many passions and emotions. The internet has made this ongoing discourse more accessible and robust. Full consensus amongst the advocates of both philosophies seems unlikely to be achieved within our lifetime. But, there will continue to be a wonderfully spirited exchange casting many viewpoints. This, of course, is absolutely protected by the best tradition of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In this case, of course, the discussion will continue once the Plaintiffs see fit to serve the correct defendants and not at this time vis-a-vis New Century Press, since it was not involved in the publication that is the subject of this action.

And, undoubtedly, this case may ultimately be shaped to be the "mother of all health care battles" when the right parties have each other with their crosshairs in full sight of each other.

Keeping all of this in mind, New Century Press respectfully asks that this Court allow this discussion to go forward with the appropriate advocates (defendants) and not those, such as New Century Press, that have no reason being here other than to perpetuate injury to individuals or entities that are merely bystanders and by no means tortfeasors.

....

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that there will be no love lost between the principals of both camps of the alternative versus traditional health care camps.

Indeed, the public debate over this issue will far from be resolved in this case.

However, the open unimpeded discussion must be allowed to continue in the most sacred tradition of the First Amendment. To do otherwise would forever chill the free flow of information that is necessary to bring about change in our society.

Plaintiffs have not, nor will they ever be able to, set forth any facts establishing a claim against NEW CENTURY PRESS since it was merely a bystander without any involvement, whatsoever, in the publication that is the subject of this action. Its joinder is in bad faith and without any justification.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Court sustain the Demurrer of Defendant NEW CENTURY PRESS in its entirety and without leave to amend.

1. When in doubt, Dr. Barrett always resorts to pointing out a criminal case against Dr. Clark to suggest that she is some sort of outlaw. He neglects to disclose that the case was dismissed at the first instance. This is another example of a frivolous and malicious case that is believed to have been prosecuted at Dr. Barrett's own participation and insistence. It was one more foiled attempt to destroy Dr. Clark that eats at his over-inflated ego and reputation as a gunslinger for traditional medicine advocates and drug companies.

2. Dr. Barrett is no longer licensed. He voluntarily abandoned his medical license in the early 1990s.

3. Doctors are the Third leading cause of death in the United States - Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Vol. 284, July 26, 2000; Drugs are the Fourth leading cause of death - American Family Physician - Vol 56, No 7, November 1, 1997.

4. U.S. Health System - Most expensive in the world - The New England Journal of Medicine, January 7, 1999; 340:48, 70-76.