DDI discovery DDDDdead- threats by Bolen still going strong

[David Brown]

This week, I closely followed PACER for developments from the Feb. 1st
hearing in DDI v. Barrett, and then considered with some care the
implications of the document that did emerge. And so, once again, I
only belatedly noticed the latest, ludicrous smack talk from Bolen.
And so, here it is, with my usual “commentary”, plus the actual news
that came to my attention:

“Some days it is just way too much fun being an insider in the North
American Health Freedom Movement.  I get to see stuff happening right
before my eyes, long before others become aware of what's happening. 
And, I have to say, there are members of the health movement which
have a nasty sense of humor I commend and appreciate.  In this case I
use the word `nasty' in a very good way.”
“Insider”? Who exactly let Bolen in?
“There are two things going on surrounding the Doctor's Data v Stephen
Barrett Federal Court case, which you will find highly amusing - that
is, they are amusing if you are not one of Barrett's masters or
minions. - or Barrett.  For them, nothing is funny right now.  (smile
here).”
Now, Mr. Bolen, we KNOW you have no trouble keeping yourself amused.
All you would need is a small animal and a collection of sharp
objects. But those of us with more sophisticated tastes have no
trouble finding sources of humor. For example, it was very amusing to
see DDI's lawyers finally break and retreat from their posturing. It
is even more amusing to see you continue to act like DDI's worthless
suit is going to last to discovery, let alone win in any kind of
trial.

“Before I tell you the two things I want you to have a mind-picture
available while you read.  The picture I want you to have available is
something you have probably seen at family gatherings everywhere in
the world.  It is when the young boys start rough-housing with each
other, rolling around on the floor (as boys will do), until, bored
with that they will drag a favorite uncle into the melee.  Before
long, the uncle will, using his longer arms, hold the little
aggressors at bay, not allowing them to strike him, further increasing
the young one's intent.  You've seen it - where an adult simply puts
the palm of their hand on the forehead of the overheated little
aggressor and lets them flail away - striking nothing, but increasing
their own frustration level.
“In our mind picture the adult is Doctor's Data and their legal team. 
The flailing child is, of course, Barrett, and his, for want of a
better phrase, legal team.”
Here's my picture: There is 13-year-old wannabe gangster, representing
Bolen, trying to hold up patrons and staff of a bank, representing
reporters he is trying to intimidate into silence, with an obviously
fake “Desert Eagle” that he obviously couldn't hit anything but the
ceiling with if it were real, representing his threats that DDI will
add them as defendants. The punk is so obviously incapable of
inflicting actual injury that most of the people he threatens walk
right past him. But then one patron, representing me, gets out a
real .22 rimfire and says, “Stop threatening to shoot people with that
fake gun or I WILL shoot you.” Then he threatens to shoot me and I
respond by shooting him. But he dismisses the damage as just a
scratch, picks the fake gun back and starts threatening to shoot
people again. Then I shoot him again, and break the fake gun in two.
The punk picks up the pieces, tapes them back together and resumes
threatening to shoot people if they don't give him their money. I
shoot him yet again, and call for everyone to watch as I stomp his
cheap plastic toy into many small pieces, then drag him out of the
bank. But, in the bank parking lot, he starts threatening people
again, now using only his finger sticking out of his pocket. I shoot
him repeatedly and carry him right to the curb. But then, as I'm
turning back to do my business, I hear more shouting, and turn to see
the punk trying to hold up passing cars with his finger.

Now we can start... and we'll start with Trine "Two Shoes"...
“Trine `Two Shoes' Tsouderos's blog interview of Stephen Barrett was a
hoot.  I wasn't there but received a blow-by-blow description of the
dismantling of Trine's best day.  In short, a group set her and
Barrett up for embarrassment - and it worked.  What came through
clearly was Barrett's lack of scientific knowledge, and all the
reasons why Barrett's legal team desperately needs to keep Stevie away
from a Courtroom, and, certainly, away from a recorded Deposition. 
Barrett is his own worst enemy when he talks.    It got so bad Trine
was answering the questions for Barrett.  And Trine, well, she should
go back to restaurant reviewing.  She confuses the term `Investigative
Reporter' with `Propagandist.'  Trine and Stevie got beat up.”
Let's see... Bolen admits he didn't bother to show up for an
interview, even with notice days in advance, but he doesn't hesitate
to talk as if he knew all about it. Yeah, that sounds like the
Bolenator's MO: Don't bother to watch what happens, but heckle people
going in and out. And, incidentally, the complete text of the
interview is still available for anyone to see (as long as they can
read around annoying ads) HERE: http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/ct-health-chat-detox,1,264542.story
And one more thing; as far as I can tell, the “interview” was in fact
an exchange of text messages. That is, by prevailing usage (which I
humbly admit I had to double-check) what “live chat” means. So why is
Bolen bringing up a “recorded deposition”? Did he get the impression
that a “live chat” meant an actual, live audio and/or video
interview? That would be a curious misunderstanding for someone who
claims to have the benefit of a “blow-by-blow description” of the
events.

“The second thing is the latest happenings in the Doctor's Data v
Barrett Court Case....
“Jeff Levens, one of Doctor's Data legal counsels, filed some papers
with the Court the other day.  They were, sort of, in response to
Stephen Barrett's legal offerings I mentioned in my article `Barrett's
Battle of The Bulge Begins.'  I say `sort of,' because it was obvious
that Jeff had to do way more then respond, because, as Jeff explained
things in his legal writings, Barrett's offerings were so poorly done,
so typically Barrett, it was difficult to determine exactly what
Barrett was trying to portray - except the usual Barrett indignation
that anyone would dare to sue his self-proclaimed royal self, `his
Majesty the Czar/God of US Health Care,' interfering with "his actions
to help government."  (snicker here).”
I believe Bolen is referring at this point to the 1/21 status report,
which Mr. Levens himself filed a motion to withdraw.

“It certainly didn't help that Barrett's legal claims were submitted
under the name of his Pro Hoc Vice (not admitted to the Illinois
Bar),  attorney Michael K. Botts, Esq, a self-portrayed intellectual
property attorney, and acknowledged quackbuster.  Botts, you may
remember, was quackpot Victor Herbert's attorney in two infamous legal
assaults - neither of which was successful.  Both financially drained
the entire quackbuster community.”
“Infamous legal assaults”? Mr. Bolen, infamy, like fame, would imply
that many people would have heard of them. On the contrary, nobody
else seems to have ever heard of anything like these supposed cases
that you keep referring to, without offering a single useful document,
link or reference, and you are making it appear increasingly likely
that you haven't either.

“I can imagine Jeff Levens sitting in his office, this last month,
reading Barrett's (expletive) legal offering, and muttering to himself
`where should I begin?'  For his role, obviously, was not only to
answer those Motions, but to try to make some sense out of them, and
prepare a guideline for the Court, in the form of REAL legal
documents, guiding the case through to the next step.”
So, the man who claimed to KNOW that Barrett lost by default last July
says he knows how trained lawyers and judges will respond to a
document composed by their peers. Once again, SOP for the Bolenator.
“I am going to show you some excerpts from Jeff's work in a minute,
but first, I will summarize what he was having to do, from my
viewpoint.  In short, Jeff was making it clear to the Court that
Barrett's legal claims in his Motions, were spurious, and not well
researched.  Jeff explains to the Court that Barrett is well versed in
anti-SLAPP Motions, so he should know better than to file such
spurious (expletive), due to the fact that he, Barrett, has been
SLAPPed (pun intended) several times - to his own dismay.”
So, let's see: In our world, Levens put his name on a forty-plus page
document that not only fails to offer any convincing evidence of
wrongdoing by Barrett, but for the most part ALLEGES only things that
Barrett would have an arguable RIGHT to do. But in Bolen's
BizarroWorld, Levens is the one to tell a JUDGE what to do.

“As you recall - Barrett, in his lawsuit against famous Consumer
Advocate Tim Bolen (that's me - smile here) got the stuffing beat out
of him by one of my co-Defendants Ilena Rosenthal who, quite handily,
so-to-speak, bitch-slapped (another pun here) him around the
California Court System - all the way to the California Supreme
Court.  In the end, Barrett, and his co-Plaintiffs Christopher Grell
and Terry Polevoy (Canada's low-rent copy of Barrett) were tagged by
the Court for over five hundred thousand US dollars in attorney fees
to be paid to Ilena, most of which have not yet been paid.  Terry
Polevoy, as you know, is suing Barrett's attorney and 20 others, as
yet un-named Defendants, to get out from under his end to of that
debt.”
Bolen refers to a suit he provoked, then chivalrously removed himself
from without leaving visible support for a fifty-something woman left
as lead defendant. He also refers to $435,000 dollars in fees, which
apparently, by the wonders of BolenThink, is greater than $500K. And
then he acts as if he expects anyone to take him as a credible source
about what is happening between Polevoy and Grell.

“More, Jeff was having to point out that Barrett's usual lawsuit
tactic, the piling up of (expletive) documents in volume, was wasting
the Court's time, and would only lead to an extension of the time it
would take to finish the case, certainly increasing the amount of
formal Discovery required.”
I would guess that this is not far from what a judge might think
reading any number of Leven's documents, except, of course, he
probably wouldn't have Levens' opposition in mind. Speaking of formal
discovery, that IS mentioned in the now-withdrawn status report: Most
notably, Levens requested “leave to conduct discovery before
addressing the anti-SLAPP motion”. In the Very Important hearing on
February 1, the current judge stated, “Response to Motion to dismiss
due 3/2/2011”. That means DDI and counsel are under ORDERS to answer
Barrett's motion to dismiss. (On the brighter side, for DDI, the judge
ruled, “Briefing is stayed on motion for sanctions...”) In short, the
judge clearly does not consider Barrett's motions without merit.
Neither is he treating them as an attempt to delay discovery; rather,
he is forcing DDI to answer at least one motion before they GET any
chance at discovery. And the lawyers showed so much confidence in
their ability to do so, that they asked the judge to LET them go
straight to discovery instead.

“And more, Jeff pointed out that Doctor's Data had met with Barrett's
attorneys four months ago (September 10th, 2010) in a attempt to
settle the issues amicably, but Barrett not only blew off Doctor's
Data, but, apparently, his own legal counsel.  There has been no
response to a settlement offer.  I guess we can assume that Barrett's
Motion to declare himself, Barrett, as the `Czar/God of US health
care,' is Barrett's settlement offer response.”
Gee, now I have a pacer account, too, and I don't recall seeing a
Motion to Declare Defendant God. I don't see how such a question
would fall under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Northern District,
either.

“What Jeff Levens was having to deal with...
“Barrett, et al, need to stall the case because, simply put, they need
to AVOID Discovery at any cost.  If Doctor's Data gets Barrett, or any
number of Barrett's masters, or minions, into a Discovery situation it
ALL OVER for them.”
Yes, because bloggers are SO afraid of being subpoenaed in the cases
they write about, ever since Kathleen Seidel had to testify in Sykes
v. Bayer. Oh, wait, she didn't. Well, at least Levens wouldn't be
afraid of being threatened with sanctions. After all, he already is.
Incidentally, even if DDI somehow managed to subpoena one of the many
people Bolen thinks they should, how does he think the questioning
would work?
Levens: Are you Barrett's minion?
Witness: What the (expletive) is a “minion” supposed to be?
And as long as Bolen is making silly threats based on knowledge or
authority he doesn't possess, why doesn't he once again claim that DDI
will add Tsouderos, “Orac”, Liz Ditz, me, and other semi-random
strangers as defendants? Could it be that, after seven months in
which I have sought to wipe his influence out of existence BECAUSE he
would not stop making such claims, he is FINALLY taking a hint? I
doubt it.

“Why?  Click on the word Discovery here, go to the page, and scroll
down to the section called `West's Encyclopedia of American Law -
Discovery.'   When you read this section you will get a feel for why
Barrett, and his minions, and masters, need to avoid this procedure at
all costs.
“So, while you read what is below, understand that the battle here, is
over Discovery, and Barrett's desperate attempt to stave it off...”
At this point, Bolen makes long citations from a document he
presumably knew DDI had asked to withdraw. But let's cut to the
chase. Mr. Bolen's delusions and/or lies notwithstanding, DDI never
had the slightest chance of any measure of success, and presumably
knew it. As matters stand, their case is as good as lost. There
will be no trial. There will be no discovery. There will be no new
defendants. There will be no new complaint. What will happen is that,
within a month, DDI will HAVE to give an answer to the “SLAPP”
motion. If they don't, the judge will most likely uphold the motion
as uncontested. If they do, the judge can and almost certainly will
rule against them. After that, the only question of any importance
will be whether the judge also sees fit to hear and grant the motion
for sanctions. Even that may be regarded as fairly moot, as Barrett
can seek damages and reparations for his fees whether there are formal
sanctions or not. Then, sooner or later, DDI will most likely go
bankrupt. Not because Barrett deliberately sought to bankrupt them,
but because they would not respond to perfectly valid concerns;
because they wasted money and time on lawsuits instead of dealing with
actions by the FDA against their industry; and because they undermined
the confidence of their own allies, of whom not one has come forward
in support of their suit.

“The Desperation Level in the Quackpot camp has reached an all-time
high. 
I love it.”
So says Bolen, as he rushes through another inane post designed to
threaten third parties with his fantasies of vindictive action by DDI,
about 48 hours before actual developments wiped out any modicum of
credibility in his threats, still without posting anything about it in
Usenet, where he knows his claims would receive immediate scrutiny
from me and others. Sure, WE are the ones who are desperate...