The other shoe DDrops: More nonsense from Bolen, plus Dr's Data temper tantrum

[David Brown]

The latest installment of Bolen comedy, with extra laughs from Jeffrey
Levens:

“It has happened again.  Stephen Barrett, the man who would be the
Czar/God of US healthcare can't make another deadline in the Doctor's
Data v Barrett, et al, Federal Court case, and has whimpered to the
Judge that he needs more time (sniff, sniff).”
Bolen neglects to mention that DDI made the same request when
responding to the motion to dismiss their case. Neither does he point
out the arguable hypocrisy of DDI's objections to Barrett's latest
request.

“I'm not even mildly surprised.”
Is there anything that COULD happen to surprise the Bolenator? That
would require a real event that could make a greater impression on him
than his own vengeance/ wish-fulfillment fantasies. Perhaps if DDI
served him with an injunction ordering to stop trying to “help”
them...

“The Motion For Extension of Time was filed by the Chicago
attorneys.   Barrett's so-called lead attorney, Michael K. Botts,
seems to have disappeared, and if he's working at all, it may be out
of the trunk of his car - since it was pointed out in the Plaintiff's
Objection to an Extension of Time, that Botts is NOT working at the
law office, anymore, that he claimed he worked at, at the beginning of
the case.”
Let's see... the Bolenator i) lists a mail box as his official
address; ii) is being supported through Social Security; iii) lost his
business Jurimed last fall, and currently uses a “company” name,
“Bolen Report”, that isn't registered in California; and iv) in the
present case, has presumed to speak on “behalf” of and even claim
influence over Doctor's Data, while DDI refuses to say anything about
him. But, HE is making an issue over the fortunes and whereabouts of
an attorney?!

“Once again,  I am not even mildly surprised.  We are, of course,
dealing with quackbusters.
The Judge in the case gave them eight more days - period, to file
their response.”
The exact wording of the ruling is, “extension motion is granted in
part, and denied in part.” In short, Barrett and his counsel were
GRANTED at least SOME extra time, despite DDI's objections. Curious
that the Bolenator doesn't make this clear...
 
“Just down the page I am going to let you read the actual Doctor's
Data's Objection to an Extension document.  There you will find a
clear explanation of the problem.  But first, let me explain where
this fits into the case.
“Barrett, et al, are squirming, trying desperately to get out of the
case.  They tried a strange, convoluted Motion to Dismiss, one that
was ten times the size permitted by a Federal Court.  Doctor's Data
answered the Motion, clearly and concisely.  Barrett, et al, are
required to comment on that answer.  When that's done the Judge will
decide whether or not to dismiss the case.”
Here's another way of putting it: Doctor's Data, Inc. built almost
all of the counts in their suit on the argument that Quackwatch is
somehow “commercial”, despite having been registered officially as a
non-profit corporation. Barrett and counsel replied, in large part,
by disputing this argument repeatedly and in depth. DDI countered, in
large part, by saying that Quackwatch IS SO IS SO IS SO IS SO
commercial, mainly if not solely on the grounds that ads appear on
quackwatch.org. All the judge needs to consider in evaluating DDI's
argument is that “non-profit” websites feature “ads” all the time-
like the site for Generation Rescue, which has... AN AD FOR DOCTOR'S
DATA!!! So, it looks very much like Doctor's Data ought to HOPE the
judge dismisses their case.

“There will NOT be a Dismissal.  Once that process is over DISCOVERY
will begin.  It is this process that Barrett and the other defendants
FEAR immensely.  So does Barrett's support network, for it will be
here that information will be gathered as evidence to add new
Defendants to the case.”
Once again, Bolen ignores what I and others have explained repeatedly:
Plaintiffs don't GET to subpoena a witness or record without APPROVAL
from the judge, who will be particularly concerned with whether any
information would be RELEVANT to the allegations of their case.
Unfortunately for DDI, they neglected to allege much of anything that
the defendant(s) did not at least arguably have every RIGHT to do.
That would seem to limit the scope of DDI's “discovery” mostly to
perfectly LEGAL activities, which would not seem to be a promising way
to incriminate anyone. That, of course, would be if the case GOT to
discovery, and as long as the Bolenator is so persistently wrong in
his accounts of how discovery works, he gives all the more reason to
doubt whether the suit will survive the dismissal motion.

“Why new Defendants?  Two primary reasons.  (1)  Barrett didn't act to
put those articles on the first pages of search engines - his support
network did that, and that makes them equally guilty of the counts in
the case.  (2)  There is a twenty million dollar claim on the table,
that will need to be collected - and the jury in the case might well
award more..  Barrett does not have the money to pay those damages,
but his support network does.”

Curious that Bolen is NOW talking about the wealth of Barrett's
“supporters”, when last summer and fall, he repeatedly “reported” that
Barrett was going to lose (and at least once that he already had)
because there was supposedly no way he could collect enough money to
hire a lawyer in time to file a reply. Logically, these claims are
mutually exclusive. So which is it going to be, Mr. Bolen? Too
impoverished even to pay for a lawyer? Or rich enough to pay off a
“damages” claim so inflated that it probably would cost no less to BUY
OUT DDI ITSELF? And another thing, Mr. Bolenator, saying “the jury in
the case might well award more” is ludicrous bravado even by your
remarkable standards. Even I will admit that DDI's lawyers MIGHT have
a SMALL chance of saving their case from outright dismissal (see
below). But judges have been known to be more lenient than juries,
and on the latter front, it's hard to imagine any situation where
DDI's case wouldn't be virtually lost before a jury was assembled.
It's bad enough for DDI to be a multimillion dollar corporation suing
a popular blogger for about as much money as THEY earn in a year. Add
“Felony Stupid” for the asinine way they filed it, and a generous “bad
luck” bonus for managing to draw protests from scores of bloggers, and
almost no support whatsoever apart from the Bolenator's repellent and
ridiculous attempts to intimidate with DDI's lawyers. But all of that
put together might not do as much damage as the moment Jeffrey Levens
has to get in front of a jury and say with a straight face that a
primitive website run by a retired psychiatrist represents a
“commercial enterprise”. For at least one member of the jury, that
could be enough not only to secure a “NOT guilty” verdict, but make
Mr. Levens look like a sociopath.

“So, what did Plaintiff's attorney say?  You can read it all, by
clicking here.  It is a short, easy to read, simple to understand
document - and you'll get the idea quickly, as I did.”
Curiouser and still curiouser, that Bolen would draw any attention to
that document. Let's review the highlights of that priceless work of
comedy:

“Plaintiff was encouraged through communications with Defense counsel
to waste several hours over six weeks...”
Having miraculously dragged out a suit that should have been been
dismissed in ninety days over , DDI's liars- er, lawyers are suddenly
complaining about HOURS of THEIR time being wasted...
“...the defense counsel had no intention of cooperating.”
So says a document filed in the name of Jeffrey Levens, the same
attorney accused of refusing to tell Stephen Barrett what his client
wished to be removed from Barrett's site before suing him for not
removing it.

“The motion to exceed the page limitation was accompanied by a 44-page
brief, a 27-page affidavit, and SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES (italicized
original!) of exhibits...”
Summary: The attorneys who are asking the judge to let them use
discovery for a fishing expedition through untold THOUSANDS of pages
from Barrett's files BEFORE establishing the merits of their case are
whining about what an imposition it was for Barett to GIVE them
hundreds of pages of his own free will.

“Defendants recklessly mislead the court... when they claim that this
court entered an order `granting the Plaintiff an extension of
time'... Plaintiff never sought EXTRA time, but merely the full 30
days the court allowed (until March 4th, rather than March 2nd)”
In other words, DDI's counsel thinks it was perfectly reasonable to
make a motion just to get more days, but are indignant that their
opposite numbers presumed to ask for eight more days than that. They
also belatedly profess concern over whether others accurately
represent their actions and strategies, yet they are still not
condemning Bolen for his preposterous claims that they would add
critical bloggers as defendants.

“Plaintiff FILED ITS RESPONSE PRECISELY ON TIME. How ironic that these
same Defense Counsel are now complaining that they need more time to
respond...”
Translation: DDI's lawyers are taking advantage of the “objection” to
praise themselves to the judge merely for being punctual with their
paperwork, and berate the opposition merely for making an open request
for reasonable accommodation. On consideration, probably not the
wisest thing to do a week before the same judge decides whether to
throw one's case out of court.

In conclusion, DDI's latest filing might well prove decisive for their
case, and it is safe to say that that would NOT be a good thing.
Through last year, DDI's attorneys did so little I wondered whether
the plaintiff was willing to let their “cartooney” suit simply crash
on its own. But, in the last month or so, they have rallied
surprisingly, even, disconcertingly. In particular, they have mustered
an unexpected fund of technicalities and precedents to defend even the
most laughable of their allegations, as well as frequent emphasis on
the fact that the judge is NOT, at this point, supposed to evaluate
the case on whether its allegations are or could be true. But then
they went and filed this pointless, petty temper tantrum of a motion.
Obviously, they did not get what they wanted. (Indeed, I must say I
don't see why DDI opposed Barrett's motion at all. After all, given
that this IS a SLAPP suit, isn't a delay at least as good for them as
for Barrett?) And they might have set themselves up for their final
failure. I take this gratuitous outburst as a reminder that, no
matter how learned and logical Levens and co. seem on the surface,
they are ultimately doing nothing more or less than calling Quackwatch
what it obviously is not, to pursue either pure greed or an almost
more unsavory personal vendetta against one man who called a bogus
test what it is. If they left the same impression on the judge, then
they have sacrificed any chance of defeating Barrett's dismissal
motion, for no better purpose than ten days off his response time.