Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete

The California Court of Appeals has reinstated a malicious prosecution suit that Dr. Stephen Barrett filed in December 2002 against Hulda Clark and attorney Carlos J. Negrete.

Clark is an unlicensed naturopath who claims she can cure cancer, AIDS, and other serious diseases with a low-voltage electrical device and various herbs. [Barrett S. The bizarre claims of Hulda Clark. Quackwatch, Nov 9, 2004] Barrett is suing her for libel because she hired a "publicist" who has been attempting to destroy his reputation by spreading false and defamatory statements about him.

[Barrett S. A response to Tim Bolen. Quackwatch, March 18, 2005].

In 2001, Clark filed a malicious cross-complaint in which she accused Barrett, his wife, and many other defendants with "racketeering" and a long list of other crimes and civil wrongs they did not commit.

[Barrett S. Bogus "anti-quackbuster" suit dismissed: Why I am suing the lawyer who filed it. Quackwatch, March 18, 2005] In 2003, a lower court judge dismissed the malicious prosecution suit on grounds that Barrett not had presented enough information to conclude that Clark and Negrete knew the cross-complaint was groundless.

In reversing the lower court decision (see below), the Appeals Court used these words to describe their reasons why the original court should go to trial:

"the scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges"

Appeals court upholds malicious prosecution suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete. Quackwatch, March 22, 2005

Negretes failed lawsuit - Adobe .pdf 33 pages.