Doctor's Data moves to strike motion for relief, while Bolenator keeps on ranting

[David Brown]

“I simply cannot get over the fact that Stephen Barrett actually found
attorneys who would write legal papers demanding that he, Barrett, be
declared the Czar/God of US health care and Dismiss the Doctor's Data
v Barrett, et al, case on the basis that Stephen Barrett, in his total
nutbag role, is `assisting government.' Wow!”

Gee, Mr. Bolen, I could have sworn there was also something in there
about laws regulating commercial competitors NOT being applicable to
non-commercial entities. And free speech including saying things
about a corporation that the corporation might not like. Especially
if at least some of those things are true. But then, Mr. Bolen has
MUCH more experience than I do in litigation. Oh, and I noticed just
today (April 6) that there's a new motion on PACER: “NOTICE of Motion
by Jeffrey Barton Levens for presentment of motion to strike, motion
for relief[63] before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 4/13/2011 at 08:30
AM. (Levens, Jeffrey)” It is striking that even the brief summary of
this motion makes it sound very much like DDI's priorities have
shifted from defending the claims of their suit to trying to get out
of paying the full cost of Barrett's defense if/when it fails. More
shortly...

“Just think - a whole new legal concept, that when employed, would
change the face of law as we know it.
“I guess, under that legal argument, it is too bad that Adolph Hitler
didn't know Stephen Barrett and his legal team. For, if he did, way
back then, just think, instead of Adolph and Eva Braun committing
double suicide in their Berlin bunker, they could have, simply, run
for the American lines, hands raised, screaming `we were assisting
government, we were assisting government, we were assisting
government, we were assisting government...'”

Umm... The Nazis who stood trial DID argue that they had acted under
orders from their nation's government. But what was Hitler going to
use for an excuse?

“With this novel "assisting government" legal argument the conviction
of serial killer, rapist, necrophiliac, torturer, cannibal Jeffrey
Dahmer might of been avoided. Dahmer could have claimed he was, you
know, helping the government get rid of excess population, avoiding
the cost of public burial, etc... Then there's Ted Bundy, Charles
Manson, Manuel Noriega, Joseph Stalin, Dracula, Pol Pot, Caligula,
Vlad the Impaler, Hernando Cortes, Lucrecia Borgia, John Wilkes Booth
- all `clearly misunderstood' if you insert the `assisting government'
legal argument into their mix.”
Let's see... Congratulations to the Bolenator for listing Vlad Tepes
as TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. And it's interesting that, apart from two or
three run-of-the-mill psychotics (Manson is somewhat tricky to
classify), all of the “examples” he gives are those who acted as heads
of state, or duly appointed military officers, or at least members of
an organized political movement. So, how do the actions, right or
wrong, of people who WERE in fact representatives of a national
government present an analogy for the personal actions of private
citizens?

“Even better, jump on your favorite highway, jam your foot to the
floor, ignore those `School Zone' signs, and see how much fun you can
have holding that speedometer needle at top speed while you are
`assisting government' to keep law enforcement at maximum efficiency.
“Gee whiz - why didn't we, as Americans, just write this idea into our
Constitution? Where was George, Tom, and Ben (Washington, Jefferson,
and Franklin)? (sarcasm intended).”
Hmm... How scandalous, people rationalizing intentional violations of
the law as somehow in the government's best interests. But wait,
how's that different from a self-described “publicist” presuming to
try to "help" a company in a proceeding where he has no stake unless
it is personal enmity, particularly by claiming that the company will
add as "NEWDEFENDANTS!!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!!" third-party
reporters whom it would, in fact, be difficult and risky even to
depose as witnesses?

“It is not the first time Stephen Barrett has come up with a total
whack-job legal theory...
“It is not even the second or the third time.
“In no particular order I'll lay out some of Barrett's previous legal
theories - all of which, of course, have been summarily rejected by
the Courts.”
And let's review what a court had to say about Mr. Bolen: “, a `paid
troublemaker'...engaged by `alternative medicine' practitioners to
attack witnesses... and interfere with medical and dental boards...
false, defamatory and sensationalistic... He has defamed and
threatened (a witness) by posting statements about him on the
internet. He accosted (the witness) in a courthouse where (the
witness) was prepared to testify, after which he gave (the witness)
the` one finger salute' that was captured in a photograph....”

And let's also look a little closer at DDI's latest filing. DDI's
chief whine is that Barrett's brief “is not responsive”. They gripe
that his reply “did not respond at all to DDI's reply to the motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(6)(b)”, particularly their argument that
“federal rules of civil procedure take precedence over state anti-
SLAPP procedures”, even though Rule 12(6)(b) is mainly about whether a
plaintiff failed to show valid cause. Then they request that the
judge at least “strike or not consider” major parts of Barrett's
brief, including Paragraphs 24(a) and 24(b), which relate very
directly to the question of whether the suit is a “SLAPP” action and
DDI therefore has to pay HIM money. Finally, they whimper that “this
court (should) allow discovery to proceed before relying, in any way,
on defendants' reply”, which sounds very much like a request to be
allowed to invade Barrett's privacy to look for justification for
their attempt to invade his privacy.

Finally, rather than recapitulate Bolen's rants and lengthy
quotations, readers are offered my summary of Bolen's proffered
examples of legal “nonsense”:
NCAHF v. King Bio: A left-coast California court had a problem with
Barrett being paid any amount of money to testify, but not with
purified WATER being sold for large sums of money as “medicine”.

NCAHF v. Botanical Laboratories: A court ruling (as directly quoted by
Bolen!) found that homeopathy, ie MAGIC WATER, is “officially
recognized” by Congress.

Barrett v. Rosenthal- After Bolen made many at-best disputable or
unsubstantiated claims about Barrett on behalf of Hulda Clark, he and
the author of “Cure For All Cancers”, who died of cancer, excused
themselves as defendants, leaving a breast-implant activist/litigator
to face the suit as main defendant merely for reposting and then
refusing to withdraw his claims. After spending more than $400K on
her defense, the defendant won. The Bolenator has so far declined my
repeated invitations to say how much money he donated to the other
defendants in the suit he provoked.

“Wilk v. the American Medical Association.” After first having a case
dismissed, a group of chiropractors took an anti-trust suit to trial
against the AMA for effectively boycotting the entire chiropractic
profession. Under standard that set the burden of proof on the AMA, a
judge ruled against the AMA, but expressly declined to make any ruling
on the value of the chiropractors' services. According to Bolen,
the AMA's “records ended up in Stephen Barrett's basement.” He has
also professed to believe at various times that the major 1987 ruling
occurred in 1976, that the ruling somehow prohibited “criticizing
chiropractors” (the exact words of the ruling include a finding that
the AMA's stated concerns “could have been adequately satisfied in a
manner less restrictive of competition”), and that the judge was dead
while she was still alive.

In summary, the question can be put to Bolen- where is the “total
whack-job legal theory”, unless it is on “your” side?