Carlos Negrete's malicious abuse of the judicial system

As a former defendent in a malicious legal cross-complaint (*) filed by Hulda Clark's lawyer, Carlos Negrete, the news that he is being personally prosecuted for his unprofessional, malicious and groundless conduct, is indeed good to hear. Here is my position on the matter, written in Dec. 2002:

Regarding the investigation into whether Carlos Negrete has engaged in unethical behavior.

He certainly has! The charges made against me in the cross-complaint were completely trumped up. Even though this suit has been withdrawn, Negrete still has it posted on his website. Thus these charges are still being made on the Internet, and are being quoted and used against me by people, as if they were true and proven facts.

I have never done any of these things I am charged with doing. I have never met Hulda Clark, been anywhere near her, or contacted her by telephone or by mail. The cross-complaint reads like an exhaustive list of possible charges against a Mafia boss! Simply reading the long list of charges should be enough to get Mr. Negrete severely disciplined without those whom he has so falsely charged, myself included, even being questioned. The cross-complaint was obviously designed to cause expense, harass, distress, and damage the reputations of the people it named.

This type of thing should not be allowed to happen without negative consequences for the perpetrators. To start with, it should be enough to bring Negrete's professional qualifications into question before the State Bar of California, as well as his obvious lack of good ethical and moral values.

Even though Negrete has withdrawn the suit, I believe he acted with malicious purpose when he raised the case originally. The fact that he withdrew the suit without ever providing any evidence, would seem to indicate that once he was forced to choose between showing his hand or being sanctioned by the judge, he decided to retreat. But he shouldn't be allowed to get away with such tactics. There needs to be an investigation into his abuse of the legal system.

My only "connection" with Hulda Clark has been to ask some of her associates for scientific evidence to back the odd claims she makes. She claims that she can totally cure all diseases, including cancer and AIDS, and that the "cancer will never return." She claims to be able to do this with the use of her low voltage "Zapper," after using her subjective interpretation of the numbers produced by a simple and ordinary galvanometer, which she calls the "Syncrometer." I believe these are false and dangerous claims, and since the rules of scientific and legal matters requires that the claimant prove their claim, I have asked for some proof. It has never been provided.

Instead, I have received very public, nasty, and personal ad hominem attacks. I can see no reasonable grounds why it should be considered wrong or illegal to ask for proof of a claim, regardless of whether the claim is true or false. This is standard, everyday, and expected procedure among healthcare professionals and scientists. Nothing that I have said constitutes legitimate grounds for a suit of any kind. Even when commenting on Hulda Clark personally, which is very rare, I have always stated that I did not believe she was doing what she does for economic or deceitful reasons. I have only stated that I believed that she was in error, and I knew of no evidence for her claims to be true, and I have then asked for any evidence.

Negrete has never served me or contacted me to verify any so-called evidence he claims to have against me. My name ("true identity") and occupation were known by him at the time of filing (in spite of what is falsely claimed in the Cross-Complaint), and my address was and is easily available. Likewise my e-mail addresses, and website URLs are all known to Clark's associates and therefore easily obtainable by Negrete. All this information, as well as the address of my place of work, is all public and is easily available on the Internet for anyone who wishes to find it.

The fact that Negrete has not offered any evidence for any of these charges, or even stated their basis, is itself the best proof that Negrete knew that the allegations he set forth in the cross-complaint were not true at the time he filed the complaint. You can easily check whether Negrete knew the cross-complaint charges were incorrect. Just ask him the alleged factual basis behind them. And if he makes something up, ask for the alleged supporting evidence.

Sincerely,

(signed by the sitemaster)

The List of False Charges: Assault; Business Sabotage; Campaign to discredit reputation; Disseminating false and fraudulent information and documents to agencies of the United States Disseminating false information to the Mexican government; Engaging in a campaign to discredit its primary author of books; Engaging in a campaign to financially ruin its main author; Engaging in a smear campaign in the country of Mexico; Extortion; False Advertising; Filing false police reports; Filing frivolous lawsuits; Fraud; Harassment; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Illegal lobbying; Industrial espionage; Interception of confidential communication; Interference with book sales; Interference with Prospective Advantage; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association; Internet Spam campaigns; Internet Spam; Intimidation; Invasion of Privacy; Investigation without license; Mail Fraud; Making false claims about NCP; Perjury; Predatory Tactics; Stalking; Subornation of perjury; Terrorist threats; Trade Libel; Trespass; Vexatious litigation; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Web site tampering; Wire Fraud

For more on this matter:

Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn

Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda

A Response to Tim Bolen

The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark



(*) The Cross Complaint, Case No. 833 021-5, Filed Nov. 3, 2000
I'm no. 22, on page 8. I was considered to be a big-time crook! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!