Oct. 10- Bolen jumps the rails and the shark

[David Brown]

“Finally - a Response from Stephen Barrett et al, in the Doctor's Data
v Barrett Federal lawsuit.  In essence, Barrett's legal team took
forty-four (44) pages to say `We deny everything. So there.'  And, it
took Barrett one hundred and seventeen (117) days to come up with that
answer.  This from a guy who, Court documents show, was commenting on
cases filed against his victims up to one day (-1) before the actual
filing.”
Curious that Bolen omits to mention Barrett's affirmative defense,
which makes what would seem to be an open-and-shut case that DDI did
not even act against the alleged “defamation” within the time frame
stipulated by statute of limitations. It is also curious that he gives
a count of 44 pages, when his own link clearly shows 41 pages.
For analysis and commentary, see here:
http://www.examiner.com/special-education-in-mesa/stephen-barrett-offers-an-affirmative-defense-doctor-s-data-lawsuit

“Strangely, the Response was filed, not by Barrett's so-called `lead'
attorney Micheal K. Botts but by the local counsel Peter M. Katsaros,
a senior partner at Golan and Christie in Chicago.  Hmmm?
It looks like Barrett's legal bills are piling up.”
Strange that Bolen is saying nothing more about his latest
“prediction” of a default judgment, or his persistent claim that
Barrett's attorneys were somehow unqualified to represent the other
defendants.

“You can read the whole boring 44 page Response by clicking here.  The
whole thing consists of copying the words in the Plaintiff's Original
Complaint and then saying, after each paragraph:  `we deny that, blah,
blah, blah...'  My - guess - about two hours worth of legal work. 
And, that took 117 days?
None of the vitriolic that Barrett spewed out to his support network
was present in the Response.  No complaints that his "1st Amendment
rights were being violated by the suit," nor any of his "show me where
I was wrong" crap, was in the answer - and, it was only 44 pages. 
My view - the Response was limp.  Flaccid.  Uninspired.  Drooping. 
Sagging.  Lifeless.”
As opposed to “pathological”, “rabidly insane”, “obsessional and
delusional”, etc, etc.?

“I suspect that two things will almost immediately happen:
(1)  Barrett's legal team, if Barrett can come up with more money -
and that may be in question, will probably write a `Motion to Dismiss'
the case in its entirety.  Since this Motion has no chance of success,
and is, for all practical purposes, just an attempt, at this point,
for the Defense to get an early glimpse at the Plaintiff's case, they
may not do this.”
For someone who has been so often involved in litigation, Bolen shows
a startlingly poor grasp of the law. To start with, a “Motion to
Dismiss” is by far the cheapest way to reply to a suit. It doesn't
even have to be filed by an attorney. Furthermore, DDI's suit is so
far afield from the clear meaning and intent of the relevant laws that
the chances of a motion to dismiss being successful would have been
exceptionally high. But it appears that Barrett chose not to make
things so easy for himself or DDI. He has instead made an affirmative
defense, and asked for a judgment in HIS favor.

“(2)  Doctor's Data's legal team will most likely file a `Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction' as described in Count Eleven in the Second
Amended Complaint.
It is the second action  a `Motion for a Preliminary Injunction', at
this point, which, I think, will be the most interesting.”
“Interesting” is not the first descriptor that would come to mind.
That would be “disastrous, with “humorous” as runner-up.

“Why?  Because of two things: 
(a)  There is an unusual situation here.  Normally, when the Plaintiff
seeks an Injunction it is to interrupt one simple thing from one
simple Defendant.  In Barrett's case the Injunction would be to force
Barrett to remove the offending articles.  But, as we know, something
happened right after the case was filed and it became public. 
Barrett's support network, immediately following the filing of the
case, organized to increase the damage 50-fold.”
So, Bolen is still going on about “networks”. Why does he think any
such thing was necessary? Barrett's blog has a long history, high
standing and large readership. What more does Bolen think necessary
to create the “perfect storm” of protests that materialized over the
lawsuit? And why does he act as if Barrett's readers would not have
the RIGHT to form a network and organize protests, if they wished? In
any event, Bolen is only bringing up one side of the equation. Hostile
reactions to DDI's suit were predictable. These could easily have
been balanced by outpourings of support from “anti-vax”, “autism
biomed” and “alt health” sources. In fact, apart from Bolen's own
posts, no such compensation has ever appeared, even from obvious
sources like Generation Rescue, which lists DDI as a SPONSOR, and the
blog Age of Autism. Does Bolen expect anyone to believe that some
conspiracy silenced them? The only necessary explanation is the
obvious: that DDI's suit is such a blatant attack on free speech and
abuse of the law that even those who otherwise align with DDI do not
wish to see them succeed in this endeavor.

“(b)  the Plaintiff needs to consider the mechanism involved in how
Barrett's * floats to the top of the search engines.  The two things
are related.  In short, the same people that organized and
participated in the Googlebomb, provide the mechanism, in conspiracy,
to facilitate Barrett's position on Google, and the other search
engines.”
So, after briefly basking in his quite frequent appearances at the TOP
of google searches, Bolen is back to complaining about his opponents
ranking too high. And, he is still acting as if DDI and their counsel
have nothing better to do than investigate third-party bloggers.

“The way I see it - the two things are related and caused by the same
situation - an organized conspiracy, by a subversive group, designed
to perpetrate Fraud, and cause as much harm to the American public as
possible.”
Oh, for cryin' out loud... Now Bolen is speaking of DDI's critics as
if we were terrorists intentionally trying to harm the public. As if
that were not enough, he is throwing in the buzzwords of Tailgunner
Joe.

“What we have here is a unique situation.  Not often is a complete
conspiracy so quickly uncovered as has happened here in this case. 
Usually conspirators keep their mouths shut and try to pretend that
there is no conspiracy.  These people, in the their unbridled
arrogance, openly activated the conspiracy network, specifically, and
with gusto, to damage, intimidate, and completely destroy, with
further defamation, using  Intentional Malice, not only Doctor's Data,
but the attorney firm representing them.”
Let's go over this AGAIN. First, Barrett's supporters and other third-
parties have a RIGHT to report critically on the case. Second, Bolen
forfeited any right to complain about “malice” when he told potential
donors to Barrett's defense that DDI would seize their contributions
by being a debt which, if it exists at all, is not owed by Barrett and
is not for sale. Third, if I wished to “completely destroy” DDI, I
could think of better things to do than “google bomb” them. Indeed, I
could suggest methods that I believe would do proportionately more
damage to a corporation's premises and property than actual
explosives, but I won't do so here.

“What did Barrett's network do?  They openly Googlebombed.  They took
over the first three to four pages of Google and the other search
engines so that anyone, including the media, police investigators, and
the general public would get the false impression that Doctor's Data
and the doctors they served were criminals.  That action was, of
course, not only Intentional Malice but Fraud, and a conspiracy to
defraud.”
Bolen's mind has jumped the rails of reality more than usual. “Took
over” google? Bolen is the one who has consistently appeared at
disproportionately high positions, given that he is literally the ONLY
source of original reporting in DDI's favor. “Conspiracy”? “We”
didn't need one. “Fraud”?? We exercised our right to free speech,
openly and completely within the lawful bounds of civil protest. The
only thing we have received in return is threats of being sued
ourselves, most if not all from a self-described “crisis management”
consultant who just might be getting paid to do so.

“Barrett, and his network, are, complete scofflaws in that they think
that laws, especially those derived from the Judeo/Christian Ethic, do
not apply to them since they, by their own definition, being
`Skeptics, and Secular Humanists,' are so superior to the rest of us.
Don't laugh here.  These people are serious.  They have regional
meetings to convince themselves, and others at the meetings, how
superior they are.  I will be explaining all this in an upcoming
article called `Who the 2010/2011 Quackbusters are...'
In essence, there is, basically, little difference between what the
`Skeptics' did in this case, and what a Los Angeles street gang does
to anyone who reports their activities to the police.”
Now this is “interesting” indeed. So, what Bolen is basically saying
is that a conference of atheists, agnostics, humanists and/or elitists
is exactly the same as a meeting of a street gang. It sounds like the
kind of comparison neither group will appreciate. And, of course, at
least one is well-armed...

“However, I suspect Barrett's attempt at fund raising has fallen
flat.  His support network's idea of a sizable contribution would be
20 bucks.  What I see is a house of cards...”
So, now Bolen says that the same alleged “network” that supposedly
rigs internet search engines on Barrett's behalf can't or won't give
him enough money to hire a good lawyer. Why? Because bribing google
costs less??

“Keep in mind that I have instant access to some of the best legal
minds in the US.  And I don't hesitate to call them.  One of them
suggested this:
(1)  The use of a regular Preliminary Injunction strategy to force
Barrett to take down his nonsense.
(2)  The use of a `Gang Injunction' strategy to force all of Barrett's
minions to stop maliciously damaging Doctor's Data and the patients
and health professionals they serve.
`Gang injunction is a court-issued restraining order prohibiting gang
members from participating in certain activities. It is based on the
legal theory that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance that
prevents non-gang members from enjoying peace in their communities.'”
So, now he claims one of “the best legal minds in the US” as
supporting and even suggesting his defamation and threats against
myself and others. Would Bolen care to say who this person is?
Because it sounds like someone the relevant bar association would want
to know about.

“Click on the words "Gang Injunction" and read some interesting legal
tactics.  Think for a moment about the similarities between street
gangs and Barrett's support network.”
Why not, instead, think of the differences between gang members and
Tim Bolen? If they wish to discourage a victim from report a crime,
they rarely if ever threaten to take him to court. If they want to
keep a witness from showing up for a court date, they generally do not
say that the trial is already over. Perhaps most significantly, when
seasoned gang members see the cops arrive, they are not in the habit
of sticking around to make more threats. In summary, gang members
would appear to be smarter and at least marginally more honorable than
Tim Bolen.

“My guess is that since a Second Amended Complaint was filed just as a
document language cleanup, there will probably be a Third Amended
Complaint adding on more Defendants and Counts.
And I don't think a RICO Complaint too far off, either.
Stay tuned.”
So, Bolen has officially deferred his hopes to a THIRD amended
complaint, and thus sustains his delusion that continuing references
to “more defendants” are a credible threat to anyone. But Tim can
look on the bright side: If/when the Illinois bar investigates DDI's
lawyers for misconduct in this case, I'm sure they will want to hear
everything you could possibly have to say about it.