The Bolenator gets a scoop, still denies the obvious
6 views
Skip to first unread message
David Brown
Jan 8, 2011, 7:29:10 PM1/8/11
to MYSTERY BOLEN THEATER!!
In the latest developments in DDI v. Barrett, Barrett has moved
forward with a motion to dismiss, and thrown in a motion for
sanctions. Having caught wind of this from publicly available
records, I came up with a little experiment: Rather than digging up
and writing further details immediately, I informed Tim Bolen, whom I
feel strongly should be IMPRISONED for his “reports” on this case, and
waited to see whether he would or could do anything with a lead if he
were smacked upside the head with it. Personally, I expected him to
pretend he didn't know anything about it. Instead, he has thrown out
yet another piece of coprolite:
"Stephen Barrett, et al, filed some paperwork Monday, January 3rd,
2011 in the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal Court case, in
essence, demanding that the Court Dismiss the case in its entirety,
financially sanction the attorneys for Doctor's Data, and Formally
Declare Stephen Barrett as the `Czar/God of US Health Care...'
“I kid you not...”
So, Bolen is actually saying that Barrett actually said that he should
be declared “Czar/God”? Then if THAT EXACT PHRASE doesn't appear in
any of the documents, it can be assumed that BOLEN DELIBERATELY LIED?
“The papers filed in the case are so ABSURD, even I, in my true
skeptic world, am sitting here with my mouth hanging open in sheer
disbelief - and I read the whole thing several times before I went to
bed Monday night.”
Of course, for Bolen, he who said that DDI would seize Barrett's
defense fund, had won by default six/five/four/three months ago, and
would add reporters as defendants just for saying their meritless suit
was without merit, to say he finds an actual legal motion “ABSURD” is
mind-blowingly ironic. But what is more interesting is that he makes
it sound as if he became aware of this ON HIS OWN, rather than having
it handed to him BY ME on a silver platter. Well, I can't very well
deny that he could have done so. But will anyone fault me if I
suggest that his claim be taken with a grain of salt?
"Michael K. Botts has stepped up to bat... (maybe, sort of, etc.).
"I told you this would happen. Now will come the quackbuster's last-
ditch effort to destroy Doctor's Data - as fast as possible. We'll
call the attempt `Barrett's “Battle of the Bulge”'... Why? Because I
see the similarity, here, with the attempt NAZI Germany made on
December 16th, 1944 to reverse their fortunes of war, stopping the
Allied Invasion of Europe.”
So, Bolen is saying that the Nazis lost World War 2 because the
Ardennes Offensive failed? Then he can add the Russians to the
impressive list of people he has given reason to be offended. And, as
it happens, I believe I have a much better WW2 analogy for DDI's
suit: When Yugoslavia responded to the Axis invasion by INVADING
ALBANIA. What better analogy could there be for DDI's spiteful and
imbecilic decision to sue Barrett, in the very month when chelation
therapist Boyd Haley found himself in trouble with the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT?
“Will this tactic work for Barrett? (Start smiling right about
here). Absolutely not - for Barrett, and his band of numby-dumbies
are walking right into the situation (trap) we want them in - they
have put what Barrett actually is, right on the line. In the
documents presented to the Court are the arguments, I am not joking,
that claim that Barrett is some kind of ultimate Demi-God, fully
qualified (snort here) to decide US health care. Perfect.”
So who is “we”, Mr. Bolen? Are you trying once again to pretend that
you are a representative for DDI and/or their counsel, even after I
reported such activities as a possible CRIME? And would you care to
explain why, if DDI intended a massive “trap” for Barrett's allies,
and/or any real relationship with you, they haven't made you SHUT UP
about there being a “trap”? Perhaps you can say they told you to act
like a clueless imbecile so nobody would believe what you said might
be true.
“In the original 1944 'Battle of the Bulge' the NAZI's were defeated,
and routed, in only nine days, and that battle was their last effort
to regain a power position. However, in `Barrett's 'Battle of the
Bulge'...' the Court has awarded Doctor's Data thirty (30) full days
to eviscerate Barrett's half-vast claims. I am sure they will use
their time well.”
And when was the last time DDI actually did ANYTHING in this case?
Apart from the second amended complaint three months ago, which
neither perceptibly strengthened their allegations not removed any of
their weaker ones, I'm not aware of DDI filing even ONE motion. It is
looking increasingly like DDI does not even have a sensible “exit
strategy” for ending this suit (eg. move to withdraw and shove a
wheelbarrow of money at Barrett). Instead, they are letting their
suit careen through the courts like a runaway trailer, and forcing
others to waste time on their nonsense.
“Read this to see the similarities:
'Germany's goal for these operations was to split the British and
American Allied line in half, capturing Antwerp, Belgium, and then
proceed to encircle and destroy four Allied armies, forcing the
Western Allies to negotiate a peace treaty in the Axis Powers' favor.
[17] Once accomplished, Hitler could return his attention and the bulk
of his forces to the Soviet armies in the east.
'Fierce resistance, particularly around the key town of Bastogne, and
terrain favoring the defenders threw the German timetable behind
schedule. Allied reinforcements, including General George Patton's
Third Army, and improving weather conditions, which permitted air
attacks on German forces and supply lines, sealed the failure of the
offensive.'
“The German offensive was stopped, cold, nine days later on December
25th, 1944. And, we all know what happened after that.”
Now this is a reasonable account of history. Unfortunately, it does
not make for an optimistic analogy for DDI. In the case of DDI v.
Barrett, if anyone is to be compared to the Nazis, it is DDI. The
goals set for the Ardennes Offensive were insufficient for victory in
the western theater, and even if such a victory had achieved, there
would have at best been only a small improvement in Germany's, chances
against the Soviets. Likewise, DDI has NO reasonable chance of
victory against Barrett, and even if they did, they would not stop the
tides of public criticism and government action against the “chelation
therapy” industry.
“Barrett's goal, with this legal maneuver, is to get himself declared
Supreme by the US Court System. How do you spell `megalomaniac? The
whole basis for the Motion to Dismiss anti-SLAPP claim, is that
Stephen Barrett is officially `advising the government..." so, in the
quackpot way of thinking, is immune to Complaint.
“(Go ahead and shake your head in wonderment here).
“Before I tell you specifics about the Fed Court paperwork, and let
you laugh, let me back up a little and bring this all into
perspective.”
Let's see... This is coming from the person who has presumed to act as
if he can speak for DDI as well as their actual lawyers and
spokespeople. And he is calling BARRETT a “megalomaniac”?
“(1) This case was filed on June 18th, 2010. That was 203 days ago.
It took Goofy Barrett, and Absent Botts, 199 days to get a Motion to
Dismiss together. Ummmm?...
“(2) Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court are limited to fifteen (15)
pages. Barrett/Bott's Motions (there are several - all related) and
documents, total two-hundred-seventy-one (271) pages. Even more
Ummmm...”
Yes, and YOU, Mr. Bolen, announced on July 16, almost SEVEN MONTHS
ago, that Barrett had already lost by a default judgment. Do your
sarcastic comments have any credibility now?
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
“(3) Michael K. Botts, Barrett's supposed `lead attorney,' you will
remember, is a quackbuster. Here is what I wrote about him once
before in an article titled "Has Stephen Barrett's "Puppet Master"
Appeared?"
`Why would someone pick Botts when he is not a litigator? Because
Botts is, himself, a quackbuster. He is close to being an insider,
and he is, clearly, a zealot. You will find his name interspersed
through quackbuster documents going back as far as 1986...”
Why, I do recall that Bolen said that a lawyer is not a litigator if
he specializes in intellectual propery law, apparently because Bolen
thinks that lawsuits NEVER HAPPEN over copyrights. So why on Earth is
Bolen reminding people of this?
“(4) Stephen Barrett took a correspondence course from a mail order
Law School that, for years, advertised on matchbook covers. Frankly,
I think, he has burned himself repeatedly with the law information he
thinks he got in the mail.
“(5) Stephen Barrett, and his legal team have been LATE for every
required filing in this case. Its like they forgot where they left
their crayons. Attention Deficit issues?”
And Mr. Bolen has been wrong in every “prediction” he has made about
the case. So who's in a position to criticize here?
“(6) Stephen Barrett, the guy who would be the Czar/God of US health
care, has been formally declared, in a Published Appeals Court
decision (NCAHF v King Bio) to be generally "biased, and unworthy of
credibility." Hmmmm?'
Bolen keeps mentioning this ruling, as if a left-coast judge who
didn't think sellers of MAGIC WATER should have to prove their
products work is the first and last authority on Barrett. Well, why
don't we compare this to some of the things another court said about
TIM BOLEN: Cavitat's own records, produced only after two court orders
mandating their disclosure, establish beyond peradventure that Cavitat
is using this proceeding for the improper purpose of attacking dental
boards targeting its customers… Part of that cadre of practitioners is
funding or coordinating this lawsuit against Aetna, and they use the
services of Tim Bolen, a `paid troublemaker,' and self-styled `crisis
manager' engaged by `alternative medicine' practitioners to attack
witnesses like Dr. Baratz and interfere with medical and dental
boards...” So, Mr. Bolen, why not focus on what people say, rather
than what a judge says about them?
“ (7) After the suit was filed, instead of answering the complaint,
Barrett, and his minions, launched an all-out attack using the
internet search engines attempting to destroy Doctor's Data quickly so
they could not financially pursue the case. That has not worked.
More, I suspect that those that participated in that action rightfully
fear being added on to the lawsuit in a Third, or a Fourth, Amended
Complaint. And, they should be.”
Why does Bolen think the overwhelming criticism directed against DDI
for their suit needs to be explained by an organized conspiracy? For
that matter, why does he think that WE, the diverse critics of
chelation therapy as an autism treatment, would expect anything we say
to have an ACTUAL IMPACT on DDI's ACTUAL CUSTOMERS? By all
indications, said customers are primarily people who blame autism on
vaccines, and by our long experience, they dismiss, belittle or ignore
us as “pharma shills”. So, Mr. Bolen, even if you could justify
blaming us for any financial misfortune DDI may have suffered since
the filing of the suit (and if you do that, why not show us SALES
RECORDS?), you can't very well claim that we PLANNED such a result.
“I read all the latest filing paperwork - then I set it aside to think
about it, so I could get a picture of what is happening behind the
scenes over there in quackpotville. What I see, over there, is
massive turmoil, anger, accusations, finger-pointing and bomb-shelter
building. I'll explain as I go along - but, in short, Doctor's Data
properly attacked, with their well written, well targeted, lawsuit,
the intimidating facade structure Barrett, and his handlers, want the
public to see. Consequently, the quackpot structure is very, very
alarmed - as well they should be. By attacking this facade, and I am
using the word `facade' correctly, Doctor's Data has put themselves in
the position of being able to examine, by order of the Federal Court,
ALL of that facade, and all of the people in it, using a process built
into the Court System called `Discovery.'
“At this point Barrett, and his minions and handlers, are in a full-on
panic - and EVERY attempt, short of admitting wrongdoing and removing
the offending material, to stop the use of `Discovery,' is going to be
tried. That's what this DESPERATE Motion move is really all about.”
Okay, Mr. Bolen, why don't YOU explain what you think DDI would
actually DO with discovery if they got it? To the extent that DDI had
ANY strategy, it seems to have been that if they subpoenaed enough
witnesses and documents, they could make at least a few of their
allegations stick. But, as I already pointed out, the key to
effective investigation is NOT to gather as much info as possible, but
to analyze the information at hand effectively. If a judge gave DDI
their “fishing license”, the only difference it would forseeably make
would be that, before losing, they would cause great inconvenience to
Barrett and others.
“Why doesn't Barrett just man-up, admit his wrongdoing, and remove
the material? Because Barrett is, in my opinion, a true megalomaniac,
and he simply cannot, because of that personality deficit, admit he
did something wrong. This nutbag really does think he is a God. His
minions think he is too.
“And that puts this case into true perspective - It's Push Comes to
Shove Time... We are down to the nitty-gritty, right where we, in the
Health Freedom Movement, want Barrett, and his minions and masters to
be. They have staked their entire Defense on Barrett's credibility.
Perfect.
“Get out your baseball bats, folks, Barrett is going to `run the
gauntlet.'"
And why hasn't Mr. Bolen taken down all his failed predictions of
imminent victory for DDI? Or admitted that he has NO authority to
speak for or influence DDI and/or Jeffrey Levens? Or at least stopped
threatening other reporters with being added as defendants?
“There were four filings:
“(1) MOTION by Defendants The National Council Against Health Fraud,
Inc., Quackwatch, Inc., Stephen J. Barrett to dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011).
Two pages.
“In essence, this Motion requests the Court to Dismiss the entire case
based on two legal claims: (a) Pursuant to the Citizen's
Participation Act, 735 ILCS 110/1, or (b) Pursuant to the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
“Both of these are nonsense claims. It is here, however, that
Barrett's Defense team claims that he, Barrett, is to do-all, be-all,
Demi-God of US health care, and then make demand to have him declared
the Czar/God of US health care. More, the Citizen's Participation
Act, 735 ILCS 110/1 has never been tested in the Courts, and the
rambling writings about this by Botts, are, to me, a far cry from a
REAL anti-SLAPP Motion.”
So... Bolen is saying that HE knows what a “real anti-SLAPP motion”
should look like better than a trained attorney. He also claims to
know that Barrett's motion has no chance of success. Gee, Mr. Bolen,
I don't pretend to know about law like you do, but it seems to me that
the biggest obstacle to the motion to dismiss was that the judge had
already set a deadline for submitting discovery schedules. Since
Barrett is clearly moving forward with his planned motion, it is clear
that that obstacle was overcome. So, what exactly are the OTHER
obstacles that Bolen believes are MORE likely to defeat the motion to
dismiss?
“One of their main claims is that the one year Statute of Limitations
has run out on the Libel Claim, nullifying, they say, the entire basis
of the case. What they want everyone, including the Court, to ignore
is the `republishing of the statements' every time Barrett sent out a
new newsletter, filed a new anonymous, or other, complaint, etc with a
medical Board, insurance company, Federal Agency, newspaper, etc...
Then too, Barrett's minions republished the articles taking over the
first three pages of the search engines right after the case was
filed. (chuckle here).
“More, Barrett's minions are maintaining an SEO googlebomb system
which requires DAILY maintenance - republishing, in effect, each day.”
That's strange, Mr. Bolen, aka Lazy Imbecilic Thug. For one thing,
it's been three MONTHS since the “statute of limitations” issue was
raised, and this is the FIRST time I have noticed you mention it. For
another, it seems like, every time Barrett sued somebody for
“republishing” your “newsletter”, the first line of defense was always
that they had NO responsibility or liability if your words that they
scattered all over the internet were defamatory lies. So, are you now
saying that you believe that your distributors' primary defense was
without merit? And also, before you continue making an issue of
whether critics of DDI use SEO services that are perfectly LEGAL, why
not make a statement whether YOU have ever paid for such a service?
“(2) MOTION by Defendants Stephen J. Barrett, Quackwatch, Inc., The
National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. for sanctions (Wasserman,
Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011). Three pages.
“I had to read this Motion and its back up documentation several
times, before I got the picture. In essence, Barrett and Botts are in
a snit, and want Doctor's Data's attorneys "sanctioned" because:
“(a) Doctor's Data sued not only Barrett, but Quackwatch Inc, and the
National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) incurring, as they say,
additional legal expenses. (start smiling - this is a good one), but
“(b) they, TOLD Doctor's Data to drop those Defendants, or else, and
Doctor's Data did NOT follow their orders. (smile a little more,
here).'
“The basis for their claim is that Barrett `claims' that the NCAHF has
not been active since 2004, and Quackwatch Inc was dissolved this last
year - and he, through his attorney Botts, TOLD this to Doctor's Data
and they continued to sue them anyway.”
Let's compare Bolen's “account” to the actual motion: “A notice of
this Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was submitted to the Plaintiff's
Attorney on August 25th... Plaintiff's attorneys have failed to
withdraw or correct the challenged claims and contentions mentioned in
this notice... but instead reasserted them in the Second Amended
Complaint... Defendants respectfully assert that the Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Plaintiff's Attorneys without knowledge,
information or belief formed after inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances... to harass and needlessly increase the cost of
litigation... not warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous
argument... (with) factual contentions that do not have evidentiary
support and will not likely have any evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery... (A)s
further evidence of the frivolousness of this action and that it was
filed for the purpose of harassment, Defendants refer the court to the
notice of Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and for their
Motion For Summary Judgment...” Gee, Mr. Bolen, nothing here about
Levens and DDI not dropping the NCAHF as a defendant. It does appear
to reference Barrett's report that Jeffrey Levens refused to state
what DDI wished for Barrett to retract before suing him. Apparently,
you think that the issue of whether a defendant is told the charge
before being brought to court is such “nonsense” that it doesn't even
warrant mention. Gee, and I have wondered why you didn't last in law
enforcement...
“Well, (get your laugh ready) this is typical Barrett writing `law' to
suit his megalomaniacal outlook. What nonsense:
“(a) Barrett never hesitated to use the NCAHF name, as though it was
VERY active. In fact he used it every week, claiming the Consumer
Digest newsletter was co-sponsored by the NCAHF and himself.
“(b) I wrote an article about the NCAHF Board members, called
"Doctor's Data V Barrett, et al - The NCAHF Board Members are Screwed
- REALLY Screwed..." In that article I wrote specific information
about each Board member - and ALL of that information came from a
quackpot website, or from the individual Member's website where they
bragged about their NCAHF Board Membership.
“(c) The NCAHF corporate status shows it to be active, with address
in California.
“(d) Quackwatch, Inc, it looks to me. was VERY active when Barrett
first wrote those articles about Doctor's Data under their banner.
“So, why is Barrett making these totally foolish Motions? (grin
here).
“(a) Because, I think, megalomaniacal Barrett, probably pretty much
told the NCAHF Board members that he, Barrett, was the Czar/God here,
and they would not be required to do anything except sit there and
look pretty. Now, of course, since the NCAHF most likely did NOT
follow corporate rules for much of anything, those same board members,
I'd guess have individually, or in groups, lawyered up, and may well
be threatening Barrett with separate lawsuits, since they are VERY
much individually liable for NCAHF actions. Wouldn't surprise me a
bit.”
Gee, Mr. Bolen, six months ago you were claiming that you had
authority to HAVE reporters including David Gorski, Liz Ditz and
myself added as defendants in DDI's Second Amended Complaint. So,
who's the real megalomaniac?
“(b) When Barrett wrote those article under the Quackwatch, Inc
banner, as I recall, there were only two Quackwatch, Inc Board Members
- Stephen Barrett and his wife Judith. Doctor's Data is already going
after those individual board members in their pleadings. It appears
that things are not going well in the Barrett households. It appears
that Stephen lives in North Carolina and Judith in Pennsylvania. In
short, Judith's assets, which I'm sure she kept separate, are now on
the table.”
Once again, Bolen shows that he has a fetish about other people having
their assets seized. Also, once again, he doesn't give any EVIDENCE
of what he claims to know.
“(3) MOTION by Defendants Stephen J. Barrett, Quackwatch, Inc., The
National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. for leave to file Briefs
in Excess of 15 pages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 1, # 2
Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 1,
Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 2, Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 2, Part 2)
(Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011). Two hundred sixty five
pages.
“I laughed all the way through this reading of documents. It is
typical Barrett - a bury the Court with meaningless, repetitive,
(censored) technique, hoping nobody actually reads it, but the
thickness of the submitted paperwork appears to have importance. In
short, Barrett is challenging the entire US court system over their
fifteen (15) page rule. To me, all there is is repetitive whining and
screeching..”
Now this is getting curiouser and curiouser. Every one of those links
leads not to a document, but to a page that says, “This is a
Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized
entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged.” It sounds
like Mr. Bolen isn't supposed to possess the documents he claims to
possess. It is also curious that he fails to allow in any way that,
if Barrett seems to be responding with a massive amount of meaningless
paper, it MIGHT be because the original suit is no less meaningless.
Also curious that a man whose “reporting” on the case has consisted
largely of leaping out of dark, dismal corners of the internet and
shouting, “NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS! NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!” would complain about “repetitive whining and
screeching” by anyone else.
“(4) NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Charles Wasserman for presentment of
motion for leave to file, 40 before Honorable William J. Hibbler on
1/13/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011) One
page.
“Self-explanatory. There will be a hearing over these points.”
Well, nothing to argue with here. Except, a notice of a motion pretty
much IS a notice of a hearing, so why did Bolen think it necessary to
SAY a hearing would take place?
“The concise, legally focused, documents in these pleadings were
written, and submitted to the Court, by Mathew Wasserman of the
Chicago law firm. Except for Barrett's personal claims to Olympus, the
whining and screeching was submitted by Michael K.. Botts. Note that
I did not say Botts wrote this stuff - for it smells very much like
something Barrett would write.
“This is all just a delay tactic - to keep away from Discovery.”
How's this for a summary? While DDI has failed to take any
constructive action to improve their case, or even to BAIL OUT of it,
Barrett, his codefendants and counsel have filed a motion for summary
judgment, TWO motions for dismissal, and now appear to be gunning for
the lawyer. But Bolen, whom I hesitate to call a thug only because I
think it might be unfair to the Thugees, is so dishonest and/or
delusional that he can admit all of this, and STILL claims that DDI is
certain to win.
“So, stay tuned. There is more coming. Much more.”
Yes, there certainly is. There will be a dismissal of DDI's case.
There will be more criticism, civil litigation and regulatory actions
against those who promote chelation as an autism “cure”. There will
probably be a countersuit against DDI (depending on whether DDI at
least has enough sense to compensate Barrett while it is still
voluntary). There will be disciplinary actions against Jeffrey
Levens, which I hope will include an investigation simply for not
stopping Mr. Bolen from threatening other reporters with claims that
they would be added as defendants. There will be continued calls by
me for godaddy.com's customers to terminate their accounts if the
company does not terminate Mr. Bolen's. And whether bolenreport.com
even stays on the web will continue to be increasingly moot as
readership and theoretical value, which according to
websiteworthchecker.com have gone from 630 unique visitors and
$3,704.20 in early-to-mid-2010 to 200 visitors and $725.80 at the end
of December.
forward with a motion to dismiss, and thrown in a motion for
sanctions. Having caught wind of this from publicly available
records, I came up with a little experiment: Rather than digging up
and writing further details immediately, I informed Tim Bolen, whom I
feel strongly should be IMPRISONED for his “reports” on this case, and
waited to see whether he would or could do anything with a lead if he
were smacked upside the head with it. Personally, I expected him to
pretend he didn't know anything about it. Instead, he has thrown out
yet another piece of coprolite:
"Stephen Barrett, et al, filed some paperwork Monday, January 3rd,
2011 in the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal Court case, in
essence, demanding that the Court Dismiss the case in its entirety,
financially sanction the attorneys for Doctor's Data, and Formally
Declare Stephen Barrett as the `Czar/God of US Health Care...'
“I kid you not...”
So, Bolen is actually saying that Barrett actually said that he should
be declared “Czar/God”? Then if THAT EXACT PHRASE doesn't appear in
any of the documents, it can be assumed that BOLEN DELIBERATELY LIED?
“The papers filed in the case are so ABSURD, even I, in my true
skeptic world, am sitting here with my mouth hanging open in sheer
disbelief - and I read the whole thing several times before I went to
bed Monday night.”
Of course, for Bolen, he who said that DDI would seize Barrett's
defense fund, had won by default six/five/four/three months ago, and
would add reporters as defendants just for saying their meritless suit
was without merit, to say he finds an actual legal motion “ABSURD” is
mind-blowingly ironic. But what is more interesting is that he makes
it sound as if he became aware of this ON HIS OWN, rather than having
it handed to him BY ME on a silver platter. Well, I can't very well
deny that he could have done so. But will anyone fault me if I
suggest that his claim be taken with a grain of salt?
"Michael K. Botts has stepped up to bat... (maybe, sort of, etc.).
"I told you this would happen. Now will come the quackbuster's last-
ditch effort to destroy Doctor's Data - as fast as possible. We'll
call the attempt `Barrett's “Battle of the Bulge”'... Why? Because I
see the similarity, here, with the attempt NAZI Germany made on
December 16th, 1944 to reverse their fortunes of war, stopping the
Allied Invasion of Europe.”
So, Bolen is saying that the Nazis lost World War 2 because the
Ardennes Offensive failed? Then he can add the Russians to the
impressive list of people he has given reason to be offended. And, as
it happens, I believe I have a much better WW2 analogy for DDI's
suit: When Yugoslavia responded to the Axis invasion by INVADING
ALBANIA. What better analogy could there be for DDI's spiteful and
imbecilic decision to sue Barrett, in the very month when chelation
therapist Boyd Haley found himself in trouble with the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT?
“Will this tactic work for Barrett? (Start smiling right about
here). Absolutely not - for Barrett, and his band of numby-dumbies
are walking right into the situation (trap) we want them in - they
have put what Barrett actually is, right on the line. In the
documents presented to the Court are the arguments, I am not joking,
that claim that Barrett is some kind of ultimate Demi-God, fully
qualified (snort here) to decide US health care. Perfect.”
So who is “we”, Mr. Bolen? Are you trying once again to pretend that
you are a representative for DDI and/or their counsel, even after I
reported such activities as a possible CRIME? And would you care to
explain why, if DDI intended a massive “trap” for Barrett's allies,
and/or any real relationship with you, they haven't made you SHUT UP
about there being a “trap”? Perhaps you can say they told you to act
like a clueless imbecile so nobody would believe what you said might
be true.
“In the original 1944 'Battle of the Bulge' the NAZI's were defeated,
and routed, in only nine days, and that battle was their last effort
to regain a power position. However, in `Barrett's 'Battle of the
Bulge'...' the Court has awarded Doctor's Data thirty (30) full days
to eviscerate Barrett's half-vast claims. I am sure they will use
their time well.”
And when was the last time DDI actually did ANYTHING in this case?
Apart from the second amended complaint three months ago, which
neither perceptibly strengthened their allegations not removed any of
their weaker ones, I'm not aware of DDI filing even ONE motion. It is
looking increasingly like DDI does not even have a sensible “exit
strategy” for ending this suit (eg. move to withdraw and shove a
wheelbarrow of money at Barrett). Instead, they are letting their
suit careen through the courts like a runaway trailer, and forcing
others to waste time on their nonsense.
“Read this to see the similarities:
'Germany's goal for these operations was to split the British and
American Allied line in half, capturing Antwerp, Belgium, and then
proceed to encircle and destroy four Allied armies, forcing the
Western Allies to negotiate a peace treaty in the Axis Powers' favor.
[17] Once accomplished, Hitler could return his attention and the bulk
of his forces to the Soviet armies in the east.
'Fierce resistance, particularly around the key town of Bastogne, and
terrain favoring the defenders threw the German timetable behind
schedule. Allied reinforcements, including General George Patton's
Third Army, and improving weather conditions, which permitted air
attacks on German forces and supply lines, sealed the failure of the
offensive.'
“The German offensive was stopped, cold, nine days later on December
25th, 1944. And, we all know what happened after that.”
Now this is a reasonable account of history. Unfortunately, it does
not make for an optimistic analogy for DDI. In the case of DDI v.
Barrett, if anyone is to be compared to the Nazis, it is DDI. The
goals set for the Ardennes Offensive were insufficient for victory in
the western theater, and even if such a victory had achieved, there
would have at best been only a small improvement in Germany's, chances
against the Soviets. Likewise, DDI has NO reasonable chance of
victory against Barrett, and even if they did, they would not stop the
tides of public criticism and government action against the “chelation
therapy” industry.
“Barrett's goal, with this legal maneuver, is to get himself declared
Supreme by the US Court System. How do you spell `megalomaniac? The
whole basis for the Motion to Dismiss anti-SLAPP claim, is that
Stephen Barrett is officially `advising the government..." so, in the
quackpot way of thinking, is immune to Complaint.
“(Go ahead and shake your head in wonderment here).
“Before I tell you specifics about the Fed Court paperwork, and let
you laugh, let me back up a little and bring this all into
perspective.”
Let's see... This is coming from the person who has presumed to act as
if he can speak for DDI as well as their actual lawyers and
spokespeople. And he is calling BARRETT a “megalomaniac”?
“(1) This case was filed on June 18th, 2010. That was 203 days ago.
It took Goofy Barrett, and Absent Botts, 199 days to get a Motion to
Dismiss together. Ummmm?...
“(2) Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court are limited to fifteen (15)
pages. Barrett/Bott's Motions (there are several - all related) and
documents, total two-hundred-seventy-one (271) pages. Even more
Ummmm...”
Yes, and YOU, Mr. Bolen, announced on July 16, almost SEVEN MONTHS
ago, that Barrett had already lost by a default judgment. Do your
sarcastic comments have any credibility now?
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
“(3) Michael K. Botts, Barrett's supposed `lead attorney,' you will
remember, is a quackbuster. Here is what I wrote about him once
before in an article titled "Has Stephen Barrett's "Puppet Master"
Appeared?"
`Why would someone pick Botts when he is not a litigator? Because
Botts is, himself, a quackbuster. He is close to being an insider,
and he is, clearly, a zealot. You will find his name interspersed
through quackbuster documents going back as far as 1986...”
Why, I do recall that Bolen said that a lawyer is not a litigator if
he specializes in intellectual propery law, apparently because Bolen
thinks that lawsuits NEVER HAPPEN over copyrights. So why on Earth is
Bolen reminding people of this?
“(4) Stephen Barrett took a correspondence course from a mail order
Law School that, for years, advertised on matchbook covers. Frankly,
I think, he has burned himself repeatedly with the law information he
thinks he got in the mail.
“(5) Stephen Barrett, and his legal team have been LATE for every
required filing in this case. Its like they forgot where they left
their crayons. Attention Deficit issues?”
And Mr. Bolen has been wrong in every “prediction” he has made about
the case. So who's in a position to criticize here?
“(6) Stephen Barrett, the guy who would be the Czar/God of US health
care, has been formally declared, in a Published Appeals Court
decision (NCAHF v King Bio) to be generally "biased, and unworthy of
credibility." Hmmmm?'
Bolen keeps mentioning this ruling, as if a left-coast judge who
didn't think sellers of MAGIC WATER should have to prove their
products work is the first and last authority on Barrett. Well, why
don't we compare this to some of the things another court said about
TIM BOLEN: Cavitat's own records, produced only after two court orders
mandating their disclosure, establish beyond peradventure that Cavitat
is using this proceeding for the improper purpose of attacking dental
boards targeting its customers… Part of that cadre of practitioners is
funding or coordinating this lawsuit against Aetna, and they use the
services of Tim Bolen, a `paid troublemaker,' and self-styled `crisis
manager' engaged by `alternative medicine' practitioners to attack
witnesses like Dr. Baratz and interfere with medical and dental
boards...” So, Mr. Bolen, why not focus on what people say, rather
than what a judge says about them?
“ (7) After the suit was filed, instead of answering the complaint,
Barrett, and his minions, launched an all-out attack using the
internet search engines attempting to destroy Doctor's Data quickly so
they could not financially pursue the case. That has not worked.
More, I suspect that those that participated in that action rightfully
fear being added on to the lawsuit in a Third, or a Fourth, Amended
Complaint. And, they should be.”
Why does Bolen think the overwhelming criticism directed against DDI
for their suit needs to be explained by an organized conspiracy? For
that matter, why does he think that WE, the diverse critics of
chelation therapy as an autism treatment, would expect anything we say
to have an ACTUAL IMPACT on DDI's ACTUAL CUSTOMERS? By all
indications, said customers are primarily people who blame autism on
vaccines, and by our long experience, they dismiss, belittle or ignore
us as “pharma shills”. So, Mr. Bolen, even if you could justify
blaming us for any financial misfortune DDI may have suffered since
the filing of the suit (and if you do that, why not show us SALES
RECORDS?), you can't very well claim that we PLANNED such a result.
“I read all the latest filing paperwork - then I set it aside to think
about it, so I could get a picture of what is happening behind the
scenes over there in quackpotville. What I see, over there, is
massive turmoil, anger, accusations, finger-pointing and bomb-shelter
building. I'll explain as I go along - but, in short, Doctor's Data
properly attacked, with their well written, well targeted, lawsuit,
the intimidating facade structure Barrett, and his handlers, want the
public to see. Consequently, the quackpot structure is very, very
alarmed - as well they should be. By attacking this facade, and I am
using the word `facade' correctly, Doctor's Data has put themselves in
the position of being able to examine, by order of the Federal Court,
ALL of that facade, and all of the people in it, using a process built
into the Court System called `Discovery.'
“At this point Barrett, and his minions and handlers, are in a full-on
panic - and EVERY attempt, short of admitting wrongdoing and removing
the offending material, to stop the use of `Discovery,' is going to be
tried. That's what this DESPERATE Motion move is really all about.”
Okay, Mr. Bolen, why don't YOU explain what you think DDI would
actually DO with discovery if they got it? To the extent that DDI had
ANY strategy, it seems to have been that if they subpoenaed enough
witnesses and documents, they could make at least a few of their
allegations stick. But, as I already pointed out, the key to
effective investigation is NOT to gather as much info as possible, but
to analyze the information at hand effectively. If a judge gave DDI
their “fishing license”, the only difference it would forseeably make
would be that, before losing, they would cause great inconvenience to
Barrett and others.
“Why doesn't Barrett just man-up, admit his wrongdoing, and remove
the material? Because Barrett is, in my opinion, a true megalomaniac,
and he simply cannot, because of that personality deficit, admit he
did something wrong. This nutbag really does think he is a God. His
minions think he is too.
“And that puts this case into true perspective - It's Push Comes to
Shove Time... We are down to the nitty-gritty, right where we, in the
Health Freedom Movement, want Barrett, and his minions and masters to
be. They have staked their entire Defense on Barrett's credibility.
Perfect.
“Get out your baseball bats, folks, Barrett is going to `run the
gauntlet.'"
And why hasn't Mr. Bolen taken down all his failed predictions of
imminent victory for DDI? Or admitted that he has NO authority to
speak for or influence DDI and/or Jeffrey Levens? Or at least stopped
threatening other reporters with being added as defendants?
“There were four filings:
“(1) MOTION by Defendants The National Council Against Health Fraud,
Inc., Quackwatch, Inc., Stephen J. Barrett to dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011).
Two pages.
“In essence, this Motion requests the Court to Dismiss the entire case
based on two legal claims: (a) Pursuant to the Citizen's
Participation Act, 735 ILCS 110/1, or (b) Pursuant to the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
“Both of these are nonsense claims. It is here, however, that
Barrett's Defense team claims that he, Barrett, is to do-all, be-all,
Demi-God of US health care, and then make demand to have him declared
the Czar/God of US health care. More, the Citizen's Participation
Act, 735 ILCS 110/1 has never been tested in the Courts, and the
rambling writings about this by Botts, are, to me, a far cry from a
REAL anti-SLAPP Motion.”
So... Bolen is saying that HE knows what a “real anti-SLAPP motion”
should look like better than a trained attorney. He also claims to
know that Barrett's motion has no chance of success. Gee, Mr. Bolen,
I don't pretend to know about law like you do, but it seems to me that
the biggest obstacle to the motion to dismiss was that the judge had
already set a deadline for submitting discovery schedules. Since
Barrett is clearly moving forward with his planned motion, it is clear
that that obstacle was overcome. So, what exactly are the OTHER
obstacles that Bolen believes are MORE likely to defeat the motion to
dismiss?
“One of their main claims is that the one year Statute of Limitations
has run out on the Libel Claim, nullifying, they say, the entire basis
of the case. What they want everyone, including the Court, to ignore
is the `republishing of the statements' every time Barrett sent out a
new newsletter, filed a new anonymous, or other, complaint, etc with a
medical Board, insurance company, Federal Agency, newspaper, etc...
Then too, Barrett's minions republished the articles taking over the
first three pages of the search engines right after the case was
filed. (chuckle here).
“More, Barrett's minions are maintaining an SEO googlebomb system
which requires DAILY maintenance - republishing, in effect, each day.”
That's strange, Mr. Bolen, aka Lazy Imbecilic Thug. For one thing,
it's been three MONTHS since the “statute of limitations” issue was
raised, and this is the FIRST time I have noticed you mention it. For
another, it seems like, every time Barrett sued somebody for
“republishing” your “newsletter”, the first line of defense was always
that they had NO responsibility or liability if your words that they
scattered all over the internet were defamatory lies. So, are you now
saying that you believe that your distributors' primary defense was
without merit? And also, before you continue making an issue of
whether critics of DDI use SEO services that are perfectly LEGAL, why
not make a statement whether YOU have ever paid for such a service?
“(2) MOTION by Defendants Stephen J. Barrett, Quackwatch, Inc., The
National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. for sanctions (Wasserman,
Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011). Three pages.
“I had to read this Motion and its back up documentation several
times, before I got the picture. In essence, Barrett and Botts are in
a snit, and want Doctor's Data's attorneys "sanctioned" because:
“(a) Doctor's Data sued not only Barrett, but Quackwatch Inc, and the
National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) incurring, as they say,
additional legal expenses. (start smiling - this is a good one), but
“(b) they, TOLD Doctor's Data to drop those Defendants, or else, and
Doctor's Data did NOT follow their orders. (smile a little more,
here).'
“The basis for their claim is that Barrett `claims' that the NCAHF has
not been active since 2004, and Quackwatch Inc was dissolved this last
year - and he, through his attorney Botts, TOLD this to Doctor's Data
and they continued to sue them anyway.”
Let's compare Bolen's “account” to the actual motion: “A notice of
this Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was submitted to the Plaintiff's
Attorney on August 25th... Plaintiff's attorneys have failed to
withdraw or correct the challenged claims and contentions mentioned in
this notice... but instead reasserted them in the Second Amended
Complaint... Defendants respectfully assert that the Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Plaintiff's Attorneys without knowledge,
information or belief formed after inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances... to harass and needlessly increase the cost of
litigation... not warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous
argument... (with) factual contentions that do not have evidentiary
support and will not likely have any evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery... (A)s
further evidence of the frivolousness of this action and that it was
filed for the purpose of harassment, Defendants refer the court to the
notice of Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and for their
Motion For Summary Judgment...” Gee, Mr. Bolen, nothing here about
Levens and DDI not dropping the NCAHF as a defendant. It does appear
to reference Barrett's report that Jeffrey Levens refused to state
what DDI wished for Barrett to retract before suing him. Apparently,
you think that the issue of whether a defendant is told the charge
before being brought to court is such “nonsense” that it doesn't even
warrant mention. Gee, and I have wondered why you didn't last in law
enforcement...
“Well, (get your laugh ready) this is typical Barrett writing `law' to
suit his megalomaniacal outlook. What nonsense:
“(a) Barrett never hesitated to use the NCAHF name, as though it was
VERY active. In fact he used it every week, claiming the Consumer
Digest newsletter was co-sponsored by the NCAHF and himself.
“(b) I wrote an article about the NCAHF Board members, called
"Doctor's Data V Barrett, et al - The NCAHF Board Members are Screwed
- REALLY Screwed..." In that article I wrote specific information
about each Board member - and ALL of that information came from a
quackpot website, or from the individual Member's website where they
bragged about their NCAHF Board Membership.
“(c) The NCAHF corporate status shows it to be active, with address
in California.
“(d) Quackwatch, Inc, it looks to me. was VERY active when Barrett
first wrote those articles about Doctor's Data under their banner.
“So, why is Barrett making these totally foolish Motions? (grin
here).
“(a) Because, I think, megalomaniacal Barrett, probably pretty much
told the NCAHF Board members that he, Barrett, was the Czar/God here,
and they would not be required to do anything except sit there and
look pretty. Now, of course, since the NCAHF most likely did NOT
follow corporate rules for much of anything, those same board members,
I'd guess have individually, or in groups, lawyered up, and may well
be threatening Barrett with separate lawsuits, since they are VERY
much individually liable for NCAHF actions. Wouldn't surprise me a
bit.”
Gee, Mr. Bolen, six months ago you were claiming that you had
authority to HAVE reporters including David Gorski, Liz Ditz and
myself added as defendants in DDI's Second Amended Complaint. So,
who's the real megalomaniac?
“(b) When Barrett wrote those article under the Quackwatch, Inc
banner, as I recall, there were only two Quackwatch, Inc Board Members
- Stephen Barrett and his wife Judith. Doctor's Data is already going
after those individual board members in their pleadings. It appears
that things are not going well in the Barrett households. It appears
that Stephen lives in North Carolina and Judith in Pennsylvania. In
short, Judith's assets, which I'm sure she kept separate, are now on
the table.”
Once again, Bolen shows that he has a fetish about other people having
their assets seized. Also, once again, he doesn't give any EVIDENCE
of what he claims to know.
“(3) MOTION by Defendants Stephen J. Barrett, Quackwatch, Inc., The
National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. for leave to file Briefs
in Excess of 15 pages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 1, # 2
Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 1, Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 1,
Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 2, Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 2, Part 2)
(Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011). Two hundred sixty five
pages.
“I laughed all the way through this reading of documents. It is
typical Barrett - a bury the Court with meaningless, repetitive,
(censored) technique, hoping nobody actually reads it, but the
thickness of the submitted paperwork appears to have importance. In
short, Barrett is challenging the entire US court system over their
fifteen (15) page rule. To me, all there is is repetitive whining and
screeching..”
Now this is getting curiouser and curiouser. Every one of those links
leads not to a document, but to a page that says, “This is a
Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized
entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged.” It sounds
like Mr. Bolen isn't supposed to possess the documents he claims to
possess. It is also curious that he fails to allow in any way that,
if Barrett seems to be responding with a massive amount of meaningless
paper, it MIGHT be because the original suit is no less meaningless.
Also curious that a man whose “reporting” on the case has consisted
largely of leaping out of dark, dismal corners of the internet and
shouting, “NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS! NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!NEWDEFENDANTS!
NEWDEFENDANTS!” would complain about “repetitive whining and
screeching” by anyone else.
“(4) NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Charles Wasserman for presentment of
motion for leave to file, 40 before Honorable William J. Hibbler on
1/13/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2011) One
page.
“Self-explanatory. There will be a hearing over these points.”
Well, nothing to argue with here. Except, a notice of a motion pretty
much IS a notice of a hearing, so why did Bolen think it necessary to
SAY a hearing would take place?
“The concise, legally focused, documents in these pleadings were
written, and submitted to the Court, by Mathew Wasserman of the
Chicago law firm. Except for Barrett's personal claims to Olympus, the
whining and screeching was submitted by Michael K.. Botts. Note that
I did not say Botts wrote this stuff - for it smells very much like
something Barrett would write.
“This is all just a delay tactic - to keep away from Discovery.”
How's this for a summary? While DDI has failed to take any
constructive action to improve their case, or even to BAIL OUT of it,
Barrett, his codefendants and counsel have filed a motion for summary
judgment, TWO motions for dismissal, and now appear to be gunning for
the lawyer. But Bolen, whom I hesitate to call a thug only because I
think it might be unfair to the Thugees, is so dishonest and/or
delusional that he can admit all of this, and STILL claims that DDI is
certain to win.
“So, stay tuned. There is more coming. Much more.”
Yes, there certainly is. There will be a dismissal of DDI's case.
There will be more criticism, civil litigation and regulatory actions
against those who promote chelation as an autism “cure”. There will
probably be a countersuit against DDI (depending on whether DDI at
least has enough sense to compensate Barrett while it is still
voluntary). There will be disciplinary actions against Jeffrey
Levens, which I hope will include an investigation simply for not
stopping Mr. Bolen from threatening other reporters with claims that
they would be added as defendants. There will be continued calls by
me for godaddy.com's customers to terminate their accounts if the
company does not terminate Mr. Bolen's. And whether bolenreport.com
even stays on the web will continue to be increasingly moot as
readership and theoretical value, which according to
websiteworthchecker.com have gone from 630 unique visitors and
$3,704.20 in early-to-mid-2010 to 200 visitors and $725.80 at the end
of December.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages