The other shoe DDrops, Pt. 2: Doctor's Data hands Barrett dismissal on a platter; Bolenator still clueless

[David Brown]

With literally the last filling made in Doctor's Data's open-and-SLAPP
case, the Bolenator has come in with one more bout of clueless
gloating. So, let's hear it for another installment of MYSTERY BOLEN
THEATER!

“It's laughter time once again in the Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal
court case in Illinois. 
“Not long ago Stephen Barrett's legal team (snort here) went to court
to get a ten day extension to answer an answer to a Motion.  They said
it was necessary to get more time so as to answer Doctor's Data's
Official Response to their own Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the
Response was `so very long.'  They got the ten days.”

Yes, Mr. Bolen, Barrett's attorneys are a funny bunch! Take these
punchlines from the latest filing: “This suit alleges... libel.
Plaintiff has tried to dress it in many different forms, but the
gravamen of all claims is a few allegations of libel... `the most
frequent type of SLAPP suit is defamation, but... include business
torts such as interference with contractual rights or with prospective
economic advantage... Despite Plaintiff's creative pleading, all
statements by the defendants... should be entitled to Constitutional
free speech protection under the anti-SLAPP act... Plaintiff argues a
fanciful theory that everything appearing on the Defendants' websites
is in pursuit of making money (and) dub this theory `Dr. Barrett's
modus operandi'... Plaintiff further argues its `modus operandi'
theory are not entitled to protection under the anti-SLAPP act...
Plaintiff merely declares that Defendants' speech was... `part of a
sophisticated fund-raising concept.'” In case you don't understand
the humor, here's how it goes: Barrett's counsel shows that, by
insisting on ten counts instead of a straightforward libel suit, DDI's
lawyers made their suit better match formal descriptions of a SLAPP
action. And, because DDI first built almost all their counts on the
premise that a website with a few ads equals a “commercial” entity,
and THEN used the same claim as their central objection to “SLAPP”
dismissal, Barrett's lawyers can now refute and ridicule into oblivion
the core claims of their suit without even directly addressing it.
The big punchline is that, at this point, Barrett really isn't even
trying to get out of the suit. He's trying to MAKE DOCTOR'S DATA PAY
HIM MONEY.

“Today they finally submitted their paperwork, and lo and behold, it
was written, not by Michael K. Botts, Esq, Barrett's so-called `lead
attorney,' but by one of the Chicago firm's people, an attorney who
just got their Bar license not long ago - and apparently has nor
experience on this kind of law.”
Gee, curious that the Bolenator neglects to give a name, or even a
singular pronoun. Could it be even he knows he is blowing
flatulence? As it happens, the name on the document is Laura A.
Balson. I just looked up that name on PACER, and found her listed as
attorney in 17 cases. So, it would be very interesting to know how
Bolen reached the conclusion she has “NOR” experience. Perhaps he
meant “noir” experience, as in, she hasn't seen THE MALTESE FALCON...

“So, where's Botts?  As I said in an earlier article:
“The Motion For Extension of Time was filed by the Chicago
attorneys.   Barrett's so-called lead attorney, Michael K. Botts,
seems to have disappeared, and if he's working at all, it may be out
of the trunk of his car - since it was pointed out in the Plaintiff's
Objection to an Extension of Time, that Botts is NOT working at the
law office, anymore, that he claimed he worked at, at the beginning of
the case.”
Let's see if we can put this in perspective, Mr. Bolen. It looks very
much like DDI's lead counsel is Algis Augustine, and how many court
filings have had his name on them?

“So, what was the essence of Stephen Barrett's paperwork this time? 
Same as before - they claim that Barrett is not defaming anyone.  He
is `helping the government...' so, therefore, `this whole case is a
SLAPP and it should be dismissed...'
“I love it.  (Insert laughter here)”
The Bolenator neglects to get to the core of Barrett's argument:
Doctor's Data CHOSE to sue him BECAUSE he was petitioning the
government. Barrett makes this argument based on DDI's own words,
particularly the whiny motion their liars- er, lawyers filed to OPPOSE
his “SLAPP” dismissal motion, which, as I pointed out, made it look
very much like the LAWYERS put the suit together in retaliation for
events that didn't even involve DDI.
 
“Stephen Barrett, it is obvious, believes, for whatever reason, that
he, Barrett, is the dominant decider of health care on Planet Earth
(play the music from `The Twilight Zone' here).  Hence, he believes,
quite firmly, that he, Barrett should simply be formally declared Czar/
God of health care, and get the argument over.”
Uhhh... wow... This IS the same guy who titles his newsletters
“Millions of Freedom Fighters”, where traffic stats for his site
suggest under two hundred readers. And HE is claiming Barrett has
delusions of grandeur??!!

“In this complete mental breakdown, Barrett acts out his fantasy
through his legal team in his "Motion to Dismiss," and demands that
the Northern District of Illinois Federal Court declare that he,
Barrett, in his Czar/God of health care role, be declared to be
`assisting government,' and therefore, the case needs to be Dismissed
immediately so he can go on with his role unimpeded.
“I kid you not.”
So... Bolen is saying Barrett actually described HIMSELF as “Czar/
God”?? Citations, please...

“Of course, Barrett, and his support network, ignore a couple of very
important points.  For instance, Barrett has NO  QUALIFICATIONS to
make the kind of statements he makes:  He is NOT qualified as an
expert witness in ANY courtroom, and, in fact, has been formally
declared to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility," in a published
Appeals Court decision.  He is NOT a licensed MD, and has NOT been
licensed since 1993.  Although he claims to be a retired psychiatrist,
records show he was unable to pass the test to be Board Certified in
that profession. More, there is no evidence that he has EVER held a
full time job.  Most of his career was spent as a part-time medical
doctor in the Allentown Mental Hospital, a facility for the violently
insane.”
I am going to make an extraordinary concession: BOLEN HAS A POINT. I
know, I know, I'm scared too. Of course, he still exaggerates,
distorts and flat-out lies, but even his best efforts do not conceal a
core of reasonable criticism: As (by HIS own words) a retired
psychiatrist, Barrett is clearly NOT an “expert” in the vast majority
of the subjects he has written about on quackwatch.org. (And note how
gratuitous it is that the Bolenator is still making rants by rote
about Barrett supposedly not even being a “real” psychiatrist!)
Unless the subject had something to do with psychiatry, it would be
perfectly reasonable for any court of law or assembly of his peers to
decline to hear him as an expert. All of which only begs the question:
WHY WOULD DDI EVER BE AFRAID OF BARRETT? Only three explanations
readily present themselves. First, DDI is REALLY paranoid, to a
degree that might be considered evidence of knowing guilt. Second,
DDI is only concerned about criticism of their practices if it comes
from someone with “popular” influence. Third, DDI never really saw
Barrett as a serious threat, but chose to sue him to set an example to
others with far more authority. In no scenario does DDI look good!

“Spell CRACKPOT with all capital letters when referring to Stephen
Barrett.
“The Judge could take up to thirty days to make a Decision.”
Yes... Five minutes to review the case, fifteen minutes to have a good
laugh, and four weeks to go fishing. And if he brings DDI's filings
along, he won't have to bring toilet paper.

So, in conclusion... Go ahead and send DDI all your ideas about
NEWDEFENDANTSNEWDEFENDANTSNEWDEFENDANTSNEWDEFENDANTSNEWDEFENDANTS,
etc. Maybe their ex-lawyers and ex-execs can burn the paper to heat
their cardboard boxes after the company declares bankruptcy.