On July 9, 20087 Stephen Dombrink, a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda rendered what is most likely a final decision in this case.

Click here to see actual document

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Judgment Creditor Ilena Rosenthal's request for an assignment directed to the Ontario Health Plan is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 9 2008 Signed Stephen Dombrink Judge of the Superior Court

Click below to restrict search WWW healthwatcher.net dietfraud.com chirowatch.com About us Polevoy pics Contact us Join NCAHF NCAHF Consumer Health Digest

HealthWatcher Hot Topics Hulda Clark Tim Bolen Christine McPhee Ilena Rosenthal Quackerywatch Cancer quacks Naturopathy Coral Calcium Colloidal minerals Diet fraud Herbal dangers Strauss Herbal Pig Pills, Inc. Chiropractic Alternative Medicine Chelation therapy Magnetic scams Sunbed hazards Herbal therapies? Unconventional Rx. Science or Snake Oil? Making Treatment Decisions

Cancer Trials - Canada Cancer Trials - U.S. Centerwatch Gateway to PDQ Cancer trials Tricare Cancer trials - U.S. Military Cancer Trials - U.K. Pediatric Oncology Group - resources Hospital for Sick Children - Toronto St. Jude's Children's Hosp. - Brain tumor research

Hulda Regehr Clark - The Truth Hulda Clark killed my mother Lawsuit in Supreme Court FTC crushes Hulda supporters Wake-up call for Negrete and Bolen FTC charges Clark distributors The lawsuit against Hulda Clark Response to Tim Bolen Bizarre claims of Dr. Hulda Clark Clark at Total Health Expo Toronto Refutation of Clark's basic theories Repudiation of the Cure for All Cancers New Century Press The Rosenthal Cure Patrick Timothy Bolen Bolen on Christine McPhee Bolen on WNJC The Beavers Memorandum The Nazi Papers View Hulda Clark's product line Hulda Clark on radio Watch Video from The Cure Watch Syncrometer Video Watch Zapper Video

HWC Packaging Store

2351 South Shore Center, Alameda, CA

Phone: 510-522-8003 - Fax: 510-522-5627

E-Mail: packstore511@aol.com



Here are some of the web sites associated with Iconocraft LLC:

www.syncrometer.com - This is their DNS registration

www.huldaclark.com - This is their DNS registration

www.hulda-clark.com - This is their DNS registration

www.Positiveoffset.com - They do mailorders of course why wouldn't you use them?

www.netsystemsecurity.com - Just in case you need security for your internet site.

Moores, Jay (JM30808) - jay@ICONACRAFT.COM
IconAcrafT
1014 Grace Court
Alameda, CA 94501

 Donna Demesa
1014 Grace Ct
Alameda, CA 94501-5444

More links to FTC actions against Hulda Clark supporters

• Search FTC.GOV for Hulda Clark
• FTC press release - Dec. 3, 2004
• Complete text of settlement - from Casewatch.com
• Final Judgement with appendices in .pdf format
• Google News search for Hulda Clark

David and Hulda in Milan October 2001

Hulda Clark's associate and Scientologist, David Amrein was barred from making false claims for devices and an herbal program for treating cancer. He has been associated with Hulda Clark, an unlicensed naturopath who falsely claims that all cancers are caused by parasites and can be cured with a low-voltage electrical device and various herbs. The details of the original FTC charges from January 2003 follow. David Amrein, a Swiss national, is the sole officer and director of both The Dr. Clark Association that operates as a not-for-profit corporation in California, and a Swiss company Behandlungzentrum GMbH. Amrein was charged with making unsubstantiated claims for several products that Clark recommends.

Those people who bought into this scam can now obtain redress thanks to the settlement reached by the FTC. Amrein and all of his colleagues and associated companies are prohibited from making false claims for any of their products. In 2001, the FTC obtained a consent agreement with another advertiser of products based on Clark's theories. Clark, who writes books and operates a Mexican clinic, was not charged in these cases because her claims for the products do not constitute advertising.

Tim Bolen - Wake Up!! In response to a series of articles co-authored by Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble that exposed the underbelly of Hulda Clark's Tijuana quack cancer clinic in Tijuana the attacks began in earnest: Carlos Negrete, Hulda Clark's lawyer, sent a letter to Penni Crabtree on December 1, 2001. It was an attempt to intimidate her prior to the publication of a pending article about Clark's clinic. Negrete is still Hulda Clark's lawyer and is also involved in the Ilena Rosenthal lawsuit. Tim Bolen invited readers to join him in an attempt to intimidate Crabtree and the San Diego Union - Tribune March 3, 2002 Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble were honored by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists for Investigative Reporting for "Borderline Medicine", a two-part series on alternative clinics in Tijuana. Some of their articles: High hopes, false promises Feb. 25, 2002 Even some alternative care allies are leery of Tijuana Borderline medicine - Tijuana alternative clinics frustrate regulators - Feb. 24, 2002 The 95 percent promise? - February 24, 2002 Complaints trail entrepreneur, who claims remarkable cure rate The point of this, in my opinion, was not to complain, but rather to cause retraction or make the authors "think twice" about writing about Clark in the future. It's bizarre enough that the recent ACLU amicus brief in my own case argues that prohibiting defamation and libel infringes on freedom of speech, but it's truly ironic that they'd make this argument about defamatory internet posts written in large part to shut me up."

FTC Orders - Sept. 24, 2003 The FTC has just delivered a heavy blow against David Amrein, the Dr. Clark Research Association, and their brigade of supporters. On September 24, 2003 in the U.S. District Court of Ohio, Eastern Division, Judge John Adams, slapped them all down a notch or two. They can make no claims at all for any of their devices, products, goods or services. This includes Hulda Clark's New 21 Day Program for Advanced Cancers, the Super Zapper Deluxe, the Syncrometer, and the Complete Herbal Parasite Program. They have to prove to the FTC that their claims are true, but it must be based on reliable scientific evidence. They must keep records, they can't destroy, erase, or conceal any evidence, including all financial records, phone logs, etc. since January 1, 1999. They must provide a copy of this order to all of their affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, representatives, etc. by September 27, 2003. They have until October 30, 2003 to respond when proceedings in court will continue. I wonder what impact this had at the 2003 Rife Conference scheduled for this weekend. Hulda Clark with her mailorder "naturopathic" degree from Clayton College of Natural Health was scheduled to speak on Saturday morning. We wonder why the FTC has taken its sweet time with the Rife promoters, too. Perhaps this may stimulate some further activity. We can only hope. Current court ruling - drclark.net (.pdf file) More on naturopathy from healthwatcher.net - Terry Polevoy New NaturoWatch.com page - Stephen Barrett Terry Polevoy v. Ilena Rosenthal Case A096451 - Barrett v. Rosenthal Supreme Court will consider lawsuit - April 15, 2004 California court upholds Terry Polevoy's right to sue republishers of Tim Bolen's defamatory posts which were repeated by Ilena Rosenthal. Ilena Rosenthal had posted libelous statements on numerous web sites which defamed Dr. Polevoy. Those statements were originally made by Tim Bolen, Hulda Clark's publicist. The judges stated that the original lawsuit filed by Drs. Stephen Barrett, and Terry Polevoy should continue. The links below are posted for your information. As the news of this decision reaches the bleeding hearts in the freedom of speech arena, we expect to have reactions posted from them as well. Even though the decision went against Ilena Rosenthal and she stands a good chance of losing in court, she continues to post defamatory articles by others on internet newsgroups around the world. Case Summary Supreme Court Case: S122953 Court of Appeal Case(s): First Appellate District, Division Two A096451 Case Caption: BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL Case Category: Review - Civil Appeal Start Date: 03/01/2004 Case Status: review granted/brief due Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal vacated in part and otherwise affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike. This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. ? 230) confer absolute immunity on an Internet "provider" or "user" who republishes statements made by third parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2) What is the meaning of the term "user" under the Act? (3) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the "user" engaged in active or passive conduct? Amicus brief filed on Nov 24, 2004 by the EFF and the ACLU on behalf of Ilena Rosenthal - Adobe .pdf file Amicus brief filed on Nov 24, 2004 by the EFF and the ACLU on behalf of Ilena Rosenthal - .rtf text file Their arguments Under Federal Law, Rosenthal is Immune from Civil Liability for Republishing Tim Bolen’s Article. Immunity for users like Rosenthal is consistent with Section 230’s purpose of encouraging free speech. The Individual’s Interest in Reputation Can Still Be Addressed and Protected on the Internet Polevoy continues to argue that Section 230 violates his constitutional interests or rights. All of these ways of stating the argument ultimately reduce to an attempt to hold Rosenthal responsible for Bolen’s content.In making these arguments, Polevoy simply seeks to impose old legal rules upon an entirely new medium—rules that were expressly rejected by Congress because they conflict with the policy choice to forbear from regulating the Internet. One of the Internet’s unique attributes is that all sides of an argument have equal access to the same audience, perhaps even in the same forum. A person who believes that he or she has been defamed has an immediate opportunity to correct inaccurate information or to counter unfounded accusations. Indeed, the stringent “actual malice” standard for public figure defamation is partly based on the reasoning that public figures usually have “effective opportunities for rebuttal.” [The fact that Rosenthal continued to post hundreds of posts over the last few years that made reference to Dr. Polevoy was not mentioned by the defense.] Petition for review - filed by the Ilena Rosenthal's attorneys in California while she hides down in Costa Rica. Summary of cases accepted by the Supreme Court of California - filed April 12, 2004 #04-30 Barrett v. Rosenthal, S122953. (A096451; 114 Cal.App.4th 1379; Alameda County Superior Court; 833021-5.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal vacated in part and otherwise affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike. This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) confer absolute immunity on an Internet “provider” or “user” who republishes statements made by third parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2) What is the meaning of the term “user” under the Act? (3) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the “user” engaged in active or passive conduct? Court of Appeal orders case back to Superior Court .doc format. Court of Appeals decision - This is the .html version with bold highlights. No page breaks. Martin Sampson's review of the Appeals Court decision Lawsuit .pdf file as Westlaw citation - October 15, 2003 as cited on Lewis & Clark College's web site. Internet providers face risk of libel, court rules - San Francisco Chronicle - Nov 13, 2003. They could be sued over posting of malicious messages A state appellate court in San Francisco has sent shock waves through cyberspace by ruling that in some instances, Internet service providers like America Online and Yahoo can be held legally responsible for an online smear by someone using their service. The case could even wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. If an ISP knew, or had reason to know, that the message was libelous, and failed to halt its publication, it should be held responsible for its contents, just like a bookstore or library that continues distributing a book after a libel notice. Supporters of the ruling said the current system -- shielding ISPs from liability while denying redress to victims -- is both unfair and a misinterpretation of the 1996 federal Internet law. The plaintiffs, physicians who have campaigned against alleged health care quackery, say they were libeled by hundreds of messages that Ilena Rosenthal. One message allegedly accused one doctor, Terry Polevoy, of stalking a radio announcer in Canada, where Polevoy lives. Polevoy said he told Rosenthal the message was false and demanded its withdrawal. If you repeat libel online, panel says, you are liable - Daily Journal - SF - Peter Blumberg - October 16, 2003 Web poster who republishes defamation may be liable - Metropolitan News - October 17, 2003 The Rosenthal Factor The Rosenthal Case: A Translation - October 23, 2003 All Google Group's posts made by Ilena Rose (aka Ilena Rosenthal) - 50,700 made since she started posting until September 6, 2006. Yes, that's right, she started posting to Usenet 0n Sep 12, 1995. That means that she has averaged 4700 messages each year, or about 130 per day, or 5.4 per hour, assuming that she sleeps. Ilena Rosenthal posts on Google Groups using ilena@san.rr.com - over 42,600 served as of Jan 30, 2005; 42,900 by February 5, 2005; 44,000 by March 2, 2005; 49,400 until May 31, 2006 Ilena Rosenthal posts on Google Groups using ilena@san.rr.com - over 42,600 served as of Jan 30, 2005; 42,900 by February 5, 2005; 44,000 by March 2, 2005; 49,400 until May 31, 2006 Ilena Rosenthal posts about Polevoy on Google Groups using ilena@san.rr.com - There were over 1190 of them as of Jan 30, 2005; 1290 by February 5, 2005; 1520 by April 13, 2005; Ilena Rosenthal posts about Barrett on Google Groups using ilena@san.rr.com - There were 2,250 of them as of Jan 30, 2005; 2,490 by February 5, 2005; 2,860 by April 13, 2005 Ilena Rosenthal posts about Tim Bolen on Google Groups using ilena@san.rr.com - There were only 88 of them as of February 5, 2005; 104 by March 26, 2005 Ilena Rosenthal and Polevoy on Google Groups search Tim Bolen and Polevoy on Google Groups search Trueman Tuck's web site - He wants me to step down, and repeats inflammatory rhetoric of others Carlos Negrete's web site fails to mention the Appeals Court decision of October 15th - click on Ilena Rosenthal ruling. More on Hulda Hulda is hiding out in Mexico She's still afraid to face the music in California. We don't understand why Tim Bolen's web site still fails to admit the truth. Her non-existant and verifiable research using the Zapper and the Syncrometer is such a pathetic excuse for science. She now advises her clients to cooperate with the Federal investigators. So, how many of her patients are still alive. Her position is moot, if she doesn't have a single living former patient to talk to. So, she doesn't publish, she doesn't tell us who her patients are, so how does the Federal government know who they are? Hmmmm Try this Google Groups Search for Hulda and Tim's latest letters Hulda Clark 's programs and associates Zapped by the FTC January 27, 2003 - Swiss Company Charged by FTC with Making Unsubstantiated Health Claims - The Federal Trade Commission has charged a Switzerland-based company and its U.S. counterpart with making numerous unsubstantiated efficacy claims for a variety of dietary supplements and devices that they sell on the Internet. In its complaint filed in federal court, the Commission alleges that the defendants advertise that their products and programs can cure advanced and terminal cancers, AIDS, and other serious diseases. The products at issue are: the "Zapper," (sold as the "Super-Zapper Deluxe") a device that purportedly kills disease causing parasites in the body with electricity; the "Syncrometer," a device that purportedly can diagnose diseases; "Dr. Clark's New 21 Day Program for Advanced Cancers," a regimen that includes dietary supplements. It purportedly cures advanced cases of cancer, and, when used with the "Super-Zapper Deluxe," renders surgery and chemotherapy unnecesssary; the "Complete Herbal Parasite Program" - also called the Herbal Parasite Cleanse. Penni Crabtree reports from San Diego Jan. 29, 2003 The companies promote and sell devices and herbal products developed by Hulda Clark, a San Diego woman who operates out of a Tijuana alternative medicine clinic. Clark and her son, Geoff, also separately own businesses in Chula Vista and San Ysidro that cater to patients who buy Hulda Clark's books and inventions that she claims can diagnose and cure most diseases. Neither of the Clarks are named in the FTC lawsuit. Clark's books still on sale at Amazon.com despite FTC charges in Ohio. Why wouldn't the FTC go after Amazon? Hmmm. Now that's a good question. If the Federal Trade Commission had any balls at all, they'd sue Amazon.com. Why go after a tiny little vendor who runs a web site out of Ohio district, when they could just shut down Amazon for a few more dollars? I hope that those of you who have Amazon in your country would be so kind as to tell what the status is there. SLAPP lawsuit against us was withdrawn by Carlos F. NegreteWhy did Carlos drop the suit? Was it because one of the people that he represented damaged his case by continuing to post on the internet, adding to the tens of thousands of articles already posted. Did one of the original defendents ignore Negrete's advice? And why did Negrete ask that it be withdrawn without prejudice? Our lawsuit will proceed in California against them. And in an amazingly stupid move that is destined to inflame Nicholas Regush, one of North America's most influencial medical writers, Tim Bolen placed a link to a recent REDFLAGWEEKLY.COM column at the top of his new web site in June, 2002. The 95 percent promise? - Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble - San Diego Union-Tribune - February 24, 2002 Complaints trail entrepreneur, who claims remarkable cure rate Hulda Clark, who lacks a medical degree, claims her methods result in a 95 percent cure rate for serious diseases. “It only takes days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you have,” according to one of her books, “The Cure for All Cancers.” Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble set their sites on Hulda's multi-million dollar operations on both sides of the border. Families sell their homes to pay this woman and her followers for bogus treatments. Why doesn't the U.S. government and the Mexican government shut her down? Why are her zappers made and sold from Canada? False claims often flourish alongside unproven therapies Borderline medicine - TJ alternative clinics frustrate regulators Adios Hulda and company Hasta la vista fluke lady Hulda's Hawkers slugged by FTCWhy did the FTC let these people get off without paying a dime? Why didn't they order them to divulge who they sold their zappers and herbs to? Why don't they go after Hulda Clark and her band of misfit quacks? FTC clamps down on Hulda Clark's zapper scams - again! Carlos Negrete's letter of protest to San Diego Union-Tribune - This was originally savedrclark.org? It's a 9 page .pdf file. He also copied Geoff Clark (Hulda's son), Hulda Clark and editors of the newspaper. Hulda Clark Supporters: Running Away Baja agencies fine alternative health clinics Birds of a feather get ZAPPED together - Century Nutrition fined thousands It ain't over 'til the Fluke lady sings Hulda Clark's "Cure For All Cancers" - Except Hanne's HULDA CLARK, TIM BOLEN, et. al. SUED FOR LIBEL In early November 2000, Dr. Stephen Barrett, Attorney Christopher Grell, and Dr. Terry Polevoy filed suit in California against Hulda Clark, the Bolens, Jurimed, David Amrein, the Dr. Clark Association, and others who have spread or conspired to spread defamatory messages. Full text of lawsuit - www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html Plaintiffs' public statement January 18, 2001 Tim and Jan Bolen do business as Jurimed, an entity whose stated purpose is to assist "alternative"health practitioners faced with regulatory action, criminal prosecution, or other matters that threatentheir financial well-being and/or license to practice. Various Internet postings indicate that in September1999, Hulda Clark's son Geoffrey hired them to assist Clark with her Indiana case. In November 1999, the Bolens began their campaign to distribute false and defamatory statements to the effect that: Terry Polevoy, M.D., of HealthWatcher.net was dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic remarks. Stephen Barrett, M.D., who operates Quackwatch.com, is arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report, and other unspecified acts). Attorney Christopher Grell (who represents Esther and Jose Figueroa in a suit against Hulda Clark) is professionally incompetent and has filed a false report with the FBI. Many of the messages were republished (sometimes with embellishment) on Web sites, in news grouppostings, and in other e-mail messages -- by other Clark allies and supporters. In October 2000, Dr.Barrett filed suit in local court against Joseph Mercola, M.D., of Shaumberg, Illinois. www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercolasuit.htm Who is this man? and where is he now? He looks like he's about 6'0" or maybe 6'1", and looks to be about 57 years old with an Orange County California tan. Hulda Clark , this man stuck his nose in the dozen or so roses that the organizers gave her, and then hugged her. He then sat at her booth in the main exhibition hall to help answer the myriad of questions from the thousands of people who filled the hall. There were no armed guards, or Mounties seen at any time at the event.

Quackery links Quackwatch.com Healthcare Reality Check FDA Actions Paul Lee's Quackfiles HealthWatch - UK C.S.I.C.O.P. Ontario Skeptics Skeptics Worldwide Skeptic Magazine James Randi Foundation Click below to restrict search WWW healthwatcher.net dietfraud.com chirowatch.com Book Reviews Amazoncom HuldaLand Research Assoc. Free Dr. Clark Dr. Savage Sales Tony Brown's J. Crackpot Canadian Remote viewer Fan interview Health Hut Health & Wealth Mexican Clinic Mr. Roto Rooter Parasites interview The tooth fairy Melaleuca appeal The Ultimate Zapper The Auto-Zap Zapper Sota Instruments Build it yourself AIDS Myths? Reality FTC Zaps Zapper Ratbags Search "Hulda" Zapper down under Quackwatch Primack affidavit Join Hulda's list SD Union-Tribune Hoosier Times Google Search She's cured! Peter Chowka Barrett's blast OSU Professor Primack's Pointers Stuart Thomson Healthbase