Tim Bolen "confesses" to THEFT!!!

[David Brown]

It has occurred to me recently that I have made a rather
disproportionate number of mistakes in reporting on DDI v. Barrett. I
have now finally put my finger on the problem: I keep crediting
Doctor's Data, Inc. with enough intelligence and self-interest to bail
out of their worthless suit before it runs into the ground. I am not
going to make that assumption again. The same goes triple for DDI's
self-appointed “publicist” Tim Bolen, particularly after his latest
"report", in which he has finally been stupid enough to implicate
himself in what would be a crime, if there were any chance it actually
happened.

“I predicted this would happen months ago in the Doctor's Data v
Stephen Barrett Federal Court case.
On August 25th, 2010, in an article called "Has Stephen Barrett's
"Puppet Master" Appeared? " I said:
`So, what do I think will happen now?  Instead of a "legal" Defense,
they're going to use a two part strategy: 
(1)  Delay, delay, delay - for the last thing the quackbusters want is
to have Barrett (a) examined by a Psychiatrist, (b)  forced into a two
or three day video taped Deposition. (c)  or to have the NCAHF board
members Deposed, (d) or to have Paul Kurtz, Terry Polevoy, Orac the
Nipple Ripper, Steve Novella, William London, or Paul Lee Deposed.'”
Since Bolen is digressing for a flashback, I will, too. Let's go over
them last to first. Unlike Bolen's favorite fantasy defendants being
added simply for condemning the original suit, it is conceivable that
DDI might TRY to subpoena reporters, as Clifford Shoemaker did to
Kathlein Seidel. Fortunately for us, Shoemaker's subpoena led to
nothing but a hail of protests, a swift quashing, and sanctions
against himself. Of course, NCAHF members could be deposed, as they
actually are, in some sense, defendants, but the defense would have
reasonable grounds to insist that they only be questioned on matters
relevant to the events the suit is about. Next, it is curious that
Bolen is fixated on the idea that merely being videotaped would
somehow be a humiliation for Barrett. It is very tempting to guess
that this is backlash for the criticism and outright mockery directed
at Bolen for HIS videotaped deposition (which, incidentally, even I
think has been taken too far)? And finally, why should anyone credit
the idea that Barrett would be likely to fail a court-ordered
psychiatric exam? After all, wouldn't a TRAINED PSYCHIATRIST know
enough about the test to pass whether he's sane or not?
“Any of the above would create a disaster for them.
(2)  They will instigate a "screaming" Defense, similar to the tactic 
Victor Herbert used to use.  Botts, I'd guess, is a zealot who will
scream out, in writing, the quackbuster message in Barrett's Official
Response. 
Why?  Once the Response message is on file then the public relations
campaign to destroy Doctor's Data Laboratory, and the Doctors that
have used their services, will begin in earnest.  Barrett, and his
Puppet Master, will call on all of their resources, all at once, in an
effort to win."
Well, I told you so...  (Insert laughter here).
On December 3rd, 2010, one of Stephen Barrett's attorneys filed a
Motion to DELAY imposition of Discovery requirements for at least
twenty one more days while they prepare to file another Motion.
Just so you get that right I'll say it one more time - they filed a
Motion to delay for a while so they could file another Motion.”
Let's compare Bolenspeak with actual events:
1. After discussions with the defendants, Doctor's Data, Inc. agreed
to amend their complaint a SECOND time.
2. In the meantime, Barrett got approval for his lead attorney.
3. More or less immediately after said approval, Barrett filed an
affirmative defense which would appear open-and-shut against at least
some of the charges in the suit- a development Bolen flatly denied.
4. Along with his defense, Barrett filed a request for a SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, another development Bolen has yet to acknowledge.
5. Now, Barrett has filed a request for the court to consider a
motion to dismiss in the near future.
6. Barrett's latest filing also states that he plans “other” motions
in response to the complaint.
Given these facts, the ONLY element of discernible merit in Bolen's
analysis is his skepticism of the claimed need for “more time”, which,
as it happens, I raised first. But, rather than going into that,
let's turn the question around: What has DDI done with their surplus
of time? We don't even need to talk about the numerous unresolved
flaws in the suit against Barrett, or the avalanche of bad publicity
they brought upon themselves with it, or even the OTHER lawsuits they
are involved in. What about their reportedly declining sales? What
about the criticisms of their practices, including but not limited to
unreferenced “challenge” testing, from other supporters of chelation
therapy? What about FDA actions against other chelation promoters,
especially the spate of warning letters in October? It is looking
more and more as if, in filing their vindictive, pointless and
unwinnable suit v. Barrett, DDI diverted potentially crucial time and
resources from other, more serious and GROWING problems. THAT could
be the real reason why Barrett has let the case go on for so long.
“Huh? Yeah, I know. Weird, right? But then we are dealing here with
Barrett you know, and, sarcasm intended, Barrett took a correspondence
course in the law from a mail order company that, for years, used to
advertise their course on matchbook covers.
Even more strange is that, once again, Barrett's supposed `lead
attorney' Michael K. Botts, Esq is missing from the action. The Motion
for the delay for the Motion notion was filed by the Chicago firm.
I think Barrett is quickly spending his wife's hard earned money.”
So, Bolen considers it a sign of weakness for a routine filing to be
delegated to a junior attorney. Well let's compare this to DDI's
vaunted legal minds. From the firm of Augustine, Kerns and Levens, who
was chosen as their lead counsel? Jeffrey Levens. Who else is
involved? Apparently, one Jaya Frances Venkataramani. Any guesses
who's doing most of the actual WORK? And also, whose name is on the
waiver of service of summons? NOT a rhetorical question; I couldn't
make out a SINGLE LETTER of the signature for the Plaintiff. Note that
this was the SAME document over which Bolen gloated: “what is TERRIBLY
important, and what I want you to look at carefully, is Barrett's
printed name, and his signature, on the agreement.  It is clear that
he is shaking nearly uncontrollably... Does this look like the
signature of a man who is ready to go to Court and fight for his
pseudo-professional life?... Does this look like the signature of a
man who will soon be facing 16 hours (minimum) of Deposition at the
hands of Doctor's Data's attorneys?" Perhaps Mr. Bolen mistook the
mysterious plaintiff's signature for Barrett's...
“There's Terror in the Air in Quackpot Land...
“Why do I say that? Barrett and the minions/masters are between a rock
and a hard place.  Barrett, and others, if Discovery continues, are
going to have to spill out information that, for years, they've kept
secret - about how their conspiracy works - and all of that
information will work against them.”
Reality check for Mr. Bolen: As has already been explained, December
6 was NOT a date for starting discovery (in fact, that was last
Monday, and Hibbler doesn't even hold court on Mondays), it was a
deadline for both sides to submit PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULES. As
was further explained, said schedules are subject to review by the
judge, and if Mr. Levens had turned in one that was one-tenth as
intrusive and frivolous as your gleeful “predictions”, he would have
been lucky if the judge ONLY refused to approve it.
“If they do walk into a Discovery situation, Doctor's Data's attorneys
will be setting traps, luring Barrett and the others into, perhaps,
lying. And, Barrett, and the others, have no idea how much Doctor's
Data already knows about what is really happening so they would have
to be careful. Very careful. Remember, Doctor's Data could easily be
getting help from some former insider they used as toilet paper and
threw away - like Terry Polevoy in Canada.”
Wow, Bolen is still clinging to the fantasy that DDI has some “inside
information” on Barrett, even after it took two amended complaint to
notice that the NCAHF doesn't directly control the site of the same
name. And if anyone did have something to hide, how exactly does
Bolen think questioning would go? I get a picture something like
this:
“Have you been involved in the conspiracy?”
“What conspiracy?”
“The conspiracy to destroy Doctor's Data!”
“Yeah, but WHICH conspiracy to destroy Doctor's Data?...”
“Why would Doctor's Data want to lure Stephen Barrett, and the minions
and master into lying? Simple. Conspiracy (Count Nine of the
complaint) is one thing. RICO requires a provable criminal act. Lying
under oath is called `perjury' and it is a crime.
So, Discovery could easily put RICO on the table. Read `Stephen
Barrett, et al, Fear RICO...' article once again.
Yup. Between a rock and a hard place. Good.”
So, let's see... Bolen thinks that DDI would KNOW if Stephen Barrett
was lying. And he thinks that if Barrett DID lie, it would be proof
that he was covering up for co-conspirators. But Mr. Bolen, what if he
just lied to cover up for himself?
“So, what's their strategy?  Simple - delay, delay, delay... and
increase their internet campaign to destroy Doctor's Data's business
so they cannot pay to pursue the case.”
Who exactly is THEY, Mr. Bolen? As far as I can tell, the only
sources of ongoing reporting on this case are YOU and ME, and I'm not
taking instructions from anyone.
“And how will they delay? Here's the amusing part - they're going to
try to use a tactic that was once used against them. In the Motion
notion to file a Motion they claimed that they needed the time to
prepare an `Anti-SLAPP Motion,' (start smiling) because as Barrett's
attorney said `They are very complex.'"
And why exactly would Bolen be “amused” by this? Has it not occurred
to him that anything his allies can do could at least equally well be
turned against them? Maybe not. I have already been struck, in
trying to explain to Bolen's followers how the precedents from a
victory for DDI would actually damage their cause in the long run, by
a curious failure to consider the consequences of their actions.
Several explanations have crossed my mind. Perhaps they are
exceptionally obtuse about law. Perhaps, because they strongly
believe they are morally in the right, they believe that the rightness
of their cause will shield them from abuses of the legal system. Or
perhaps they simply have a sense of immunity and entitlement, that bad
things aren't supposed to happen to them and “their” kinds of people.
And that could speak volumes about their favoritism toward
“alternative medicine”.
“Complex? What's complex about an Anti-Slapp Motion? Barrett's got a
copy of the one that was filed against HIM in the Barrett v Clark
(Rosenthal) California case. That Motion cost Barrett, and his
buddies, over $500,000 in legal fees, after Appeals, they had to pay
to Ilena Rosenthal.
“However, and there is a very big `however,' Anti-Slapp Motions are
usually filed BEFORE a case is formally answered.  Hmmm...  This one I
think is just a stalling technique - one Barrett has used before - so
that he didn't have to actually proceed through a case.  He used it,
with a small modification, I think, in the Barrett v Clark case,
stalling the actual case for six years - avoiding Discovery.  However,
there, it cost him his share of the $500,000 the Court awarded to
Ilena Rosenthal.  (smile some more).  Then too, of course, he was
trying to avoid paying those Court awarded fees.  But, that didn't
work.”
Actually, Mr. Bolen, according to Ms. Rosenthal, the figure was about
$435 thousand, and Barrett's share would have been something like
$50K. It is NOT clear from Rosenthal's account that Barrett failed to
pay that amount. I have noticed her most specifically stated
grievance is about $311K being unpaid, which sounds like TERRY
POLEVOY's share, which Barrett has no responsibility for. What makes
matters even more unclear is that you happen to have published
EXACTLY the same figure for a BOND, which is very different from an
award for fees. So, why should we believe there ever was a $435K
“judgment”? It appears to me that you and Ms. Rosenthal need to get
your stories straight. Then talk about it to a LAWYER, not strangers
on the internet.
“See how well that legal correspondence course is doing for Stevie? 
He would have been better of to use the matchbook cover to burn
himself.
Just below is a clip from the Motion filed by Barrett's attorney:
So, let's analyze this situation. This case was filed on June 18th,
2010. It has been active over five months, and this is the best
Barrett and the minions can do? Delay?”
No, Barrett has done far more than that. You seem to be the only one
who hasn't noticed.
“Yes, and No.
“(1) Delay is their primary strategy because they FEAR Discovery most.
Why? Because, as I've said all along, Barrett is just the figurehead.
He's not in charge, and is not even one of the strategists. I don't
think he even does those web pages. Years ago Paul Lee was brought in,
from Denmark, to run the website as so-called `Assistant Webmaster.'
Obviously, some of the first question sets presented to Barrett, in
Discovery, will be about the website articles and how they manage to
get on the first page of Google, and other search engines. The people
behind Barrett need to hide this process. Why? Because Court cases are
expandable, and, with good reason can be Amended to include more
charges and more Defendants - and that IS what would happen after they
get Barrett into a vide-taped Deposition.”
Gee, if DDI wanted to question Barrett or anyone else about placements
in google searches, I would think that they would need to make a count
or allegation in it in their complaint. If they did, it's escaped my
attention. And it would seem to me that it would be hard to convince
a judge that merely being in the TOP TEN results for searches would be
a matter worthy of the court's time.
“In fact, it is my belief, that once Barrett gets Deposed that he,
Barrett, will be moved out of the first position on the Defendant
list.  He will be replaced by those that run him.  He'll still be
there but others will begin to take the heat.
Let me say that again - `it is my belief, that once Barrett gets
Deposed that he, Barrett, will be moved out of the first position on
the Defendant list. He will be replaced by those that run him.'”
Yes, Bolen keeps saying it, but he never seems to get around to
proving it. And who are that he THINKS “run” Barrett? Apparently,
his idea of “prime suspects” are Paul Kurtz, a philosophy professor
and founder of a smallish publisher, and James Randi, a stage
magician. What, couldn't he work in Bill Gates, the Pope and/or the
Freemasons?
“(2) The quackbuster conspirators want delay so they can try to
destroy Doctor's Data behind the scenes. How? They'll do, more
surreptitiously this time, what they did before - only more of it.Will
that work? Nope - not this time. Doctor's Data's attorneys are waiting
for this kind of move, and will be in the Judge's Chambers within
hours of a renewed attack.”
Aw, for cryin' out loud... There is NO ONE trying to destroy Doctor's
Data. Even I, the one using a 70 million-year-old cantankerous
fuzzball for my blogging avatar, have not shown them anything but
encouragement in running a successful business- WITHOUT continuing the
practice of challenge testing for which they have been criticized,
repeatedly sued, and now are wasting their money in the suit against
Barrett. If they cannot differentiate between criticism of just ONE
of their services and an organized effort to bankrupt them, then THEY
are their own biggest problem.
“The Convergence with the Texas "AAPS v Texas Medical Board" case...
“Come mid-January Andrew Schlafly, the attorney for AAPS will be
renewing his Discovery options, making demands for information from
the Texas Medical Board, and the Medical Board will be FORCED to
provide that info. A whole host of cutting-edge doctors have been
under assault in Texas - all victims of the `Anonymous Complaint'
process, and I predict two things will happen: (a) AAPS will demand
copies of all of those Complaints, and (b) Most, if not all, of those
complaints will have been filed by Barrett, and his cronies, and
minion/masters.”
Now, Mr. Bolen, let's think over this: The board reports receiving
six THOUSAND complaints in the last fiscal year. Are you going to say
that ALL of them were filed by Barrett and/or people directly
associated with him? That would require “quackbusters” to file about
16 complaints per day. 10%? That would require 11-12 complaints per
week. A hundredth? That would still take more than one per week, and
given the amount of information the board asks for, even that would be
a daunting task for any one person to handle.
“Why do I think that? Because I have copies of five complaints that
were originally, but not now, anonymous, and they were filed by
Barrett in Texas. More, Robert S. Baratz (bobbie baratz), the
president of Barrett's so-called National Council Against Health Fraud
(NCAHF) showed up as the only expert witness against several of those
cutting-edge doctors. More, some of the same people, I'll bet, wrote
paid-for-by-the-Texas-Medical-Board confidential `expert opinion
reports' leading to a prosecution of those same doctors.”
Now this is VERY interesting. Bolen has already claimed, without
offering any proof or even explanation of how he came to belief, that
Barrett filed “anonymous” complaints against Caquias. Now, he
actually claims to HAVE those complaints. If that is true, why isn't
he showing them to his readers? Far more importantly, HOW DID HE GET
THEM? Such complaints are SUPPOSED to be kept confidential, even from
defendants in resulting disciplinary actions. The AAPS has had resort
to full-frontal litigation in the ATTEMPT to access these documents.
So, by what means could Bolen POSSIBLY have obtained FIVE of the same
documents that a reasonably large and well-funded organization is
currently fighting to get? And, if the Board had any reason to
believe that he actually DID possess such documents, what's to stop
them from charging him and/or whomever gave the documents to him with
THEFT?

“In short, I'm betting that the AAPS v Texas Medical Board case is
going to be an even worse disaster for the quackuster conspiracy. Here
too, I'd guess, there is a good chance that more Defendants could be
added to the AAPS v Texas Medical Board case.
What's the convergence? (smile here). I'll bet that EVERY Texas doctor
that used Doctor's Data laboratory had an Anonymous Complaint filed
against them by Barrett and his cronies/minions, by order from their
masters.”
Wow, heady stuff. But there's a couple loose ends: If Bolen actually
had some sort of relationship with DDI, then he should be able to FIND
OUT who their customers in Texas are, and if he by some mysterious
means were able to access anonymous complaints, he could PROVE Barrett
was filing complaints against them. Gee, I wonder why he hasn't...

“So, things are going to heat up.
Delay, delay, delay is the move of a DESPERATE group.
So, stay tuned. There is more coming.”
So who's “desperate”, and who's delaying? DDI failed to reply to
YEARS of criticism of “challenge testing” by regulators and qualified
specialists, but chose to try to make an example of a retired
psychiatrist. DDI delayed asking Barrett to take his posts down until
more than a year after several were published. DDI waited to explain
what material they objected to until their suit was in the air. DDI
didn't take enough time to establish whether an original “defendant”
was a legal entity. DDI took until the second amended complaint to
produce any evidence for their allegations (by “outing” two
volunteers). And while DDI was busy filing suit against Barrett, the
FDA took actions that make Barrett's statements moot- and two months
after that, they are still letting their suit waste time and money.
But we must grant them this much- at least they weren't desperate
enough to hire Tim Bolen.