Bolen admits to lying just for laughs!

[David Brown]

“The quackbuster operation is having its woes these days. It seems
that everywhere they turn there is another fire to put out. It
couldn't happen to a nicer bunch... This particular fire is going to
cost Stephen Barrett's handlers over $450,000 US dollars - I'll
explain below.
“And, much more is coming their way. As well it should.”
Let's see if we can put this in a little context: The home page to
one of Bolen's sites is headlined “THE LAST DAYS OF THE
QUACKBUSTERS”. It appears that he first made that declaration no
earlier than November 2001. So, what are the chances of him being
right now? While we're at it, let's review the last three months'
developments in DDI v. Barrett: Barrett has filed an affirmative
defense, a request for a summary judgment and announced their intent
to move for “anti-SLAPP” dismissal. In response, DDI has... done
NOTHING. But Bolen is still going on about woes to the quackbusters.
Clearly, if he WERE right, it could be chalked up to random chance.

“A few months ago I wrote an article `Is Terry Polevoy the Information
Source for Doctor's Data?...' suggesting that, perhaps, Canada's Terry
Polevoy might be an information source for the attorneys representing
Doctor's Data against Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, inc, and the
National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). Frankly, I was joking
- for no way would I believe that Polevoy was smart enough to figure
out, or use, that kind of lever in his case against his former Co-
Plaintiffs in the Barrett v Clark case.
“That is - until he, Polevoy, got the idea from the article I wrote.
(smile here).”
In other words, Bolen ADMITS that he LIED, and he says that he did it
as a JOKE. But, he now claims that Polevoy is using his JOKE as an
actual strategy in court. And why would Polevoy take any advice from
a man he has described as a “pathological liar”?

“Realize that EVERY quackbuster reads my articles. It's the only way
they can keep up with what's really going on - for they cannot rely on
their own information network for anything other than the official
propaganda line. And, as Polevoy found out the hard way, there is no
honor among thieves. Polevoy got left holding the bag so to speak, in
the Barrett v Clark case - where he ended up with a Court ordered
Defendant's legal bill for $311,000 (now up to $450,000, with
interest) in his lap.”
Now this is curious. I was able to obtain and publish commentary
about Barrett's affirmative defense and his announced intent to file a
motion to dismiss, just by asking Barrett by private email. On each
occasion, to my recollection, Bolen reposted the same documents I
already had about a day later, despite having a PACER account, and
failed to show convincingly that he was conversant with their
contents: In discussing the affirmative defense motion, in particular,
he appeared to “overlook” that part of the document, and, even more
oddly, gave a count of 44 pages for a document that was in fact 41
pages.
And now we have more amazing math from Bolen about the supposed
current size of the judgment against Polevoy. So, let's see: The
document posted by Ilena Rosenthal as a copy of the judgment is dated
December 2007. What kind of interest would it take for Polevoy's
share of the judgment to go from $311,000 to $450,000? The difference
would be $139,000, equal to 45% of the original figure. That would
take an interest rate of 15% per year, which would be comparable to a
commercial credit card. So, let's be charitable and check: Could
interest on a judgment really be that bad? Well, I just found this
widget (http://www.thelegalprocess.com/judgmentcalculator.htm), and
plugged in the figure of $311,000 and date of December 1, 2007. The
result is $406,770. So, at best, Bolen has “overestimated” the
interest by almost half.

“Terry Polevoy is suing the attorney, Christopher Grell and twenty
`John Does,' to get out from under that debt, claiming that Grell and
Stephen Barrett conspired to shift the debt over to him, from
themselves. Now, that case has approached the `Discovery' phase, and
SUDDENLY (smile here, once again) attorney Grell, who is being accused
in that case of not answering `Discovery' demands is begging for
`Mediation' rather than be Deposed himself, or having Stephen Barrett
Deposed.
“(A belly laugh is fully appropriate here).”
So, where is any of this in the court records, which Bolen curiously
failed to repost? Well, after cursory inspection of the complaint,
it's quite clear that the suit IS over Grell's handling of Barrett v.
Rosenthal, so Bolen has that much right. What, then, of Polevoy
alleging “conspiracy” to shift debt to him? On page three of the
complaint (I admittedly only read to page 4), it is alleged that Grell
advised Polevoy to decline an offer by Rosenthal's lawyer which would
have dropped his complaint, effectively removing him as plaintiff.
This does not sound like a lead-in to a “conspiracy” complaint, which
would indeed be rather redundant. What about “approaching
discovery”? The earliest scheduled hearing of any kind is on February
15. It is also of interest that the complaint records both Polevoy
and Grell as “not appearing”, which would probably be required if one
tried to depose the other. And where might Bolen have “learned” that
Polevoy is “SUDDENLY... begging” for mediation? Well, the court's
site does record that the case is slated for mediation. But, I
personally saw that record there MONTHS ago, so it is hardly a
“sudden” development. And, of course, there is no reasonable way that
court records could have informed Bolen of Grell's posture, tone and
state of mind. In summarily, surprisingly, Bolen got something right,
but, unsurprisingly, he should have quit while he was ahead.

“Why is it (sarcasm intended) that quackbusters are so allergic to
answering a few questions? On video tape?”
And why is Bolen, who has been ridiculed over a videotaped deposition
in which he took more than two minutes to answer the question “where
do you live?” , is so concerned with how other people look on camera?
Everyone can agree that some people, by no particular fault of their
own, don't do well on video. Why not just leave it at that?

The DANGER to the quackbusters...
“The Defendant who got an Attorney Fee Judgment, Ilena Rosenthal,
against the Plaintiffs Grell, Stephen Barrett, and Terry Polevoy is
angry - as well she should be. Ilena claims the Plaintiffs harassed
her all through the suit, even sending thugs to find her, and frighten
her - and, harassing her business partners and associates. She, and
her attorneys, are on a mission - period. They intend to get the
money - one legal way or another.”
Ms. Rosenthal also claims that I work for Barrett and/or Polevoy. As
I have explained to her repeatedly, I don't have any formal
relationship with Barrett and have never had any contact with Polevoy,
and the vast majority of the pitiful income I receive from my writing
is for a zombie novel I wrote back in 2007. What are the chances
she's right in any of the claims Bolen mentions here (assuming he is
correct in claiming she makes them)?

“I have suggested some courses of action to them that I thought might
be appropriate. For instance,
“(1) I did point out that Terry Polevoy could be court-required to
give blood, weekly, at a place where they pay fifty dollars a pint.
If he gave two pints a week he could have the debt paid off in 86.3
years (without interest added). After a month or so Polevoy could get
movie bit parts playing a vampire victim, sans make-up, for more
collectible income.
“(2) Then too I suggested to Ilena that perhaps she should sell off
pieces of the Judgment, say in five or ten thousand dollar segments,
at a discount, to interested Canadians (Polevoy victims) who would be
in an easy position to collect - maybe twenty of them. They could
have fun `collecting' Polevoy's car, his shoes, his stapler... his
little red wagon... You know - something to do on a dull Saturday, or
a Tuesday?”
This is strikingly similar to one of Bolen's earliest attempts to
interfere extra-legally in DDI v. Barrett, by telling potential donors
to Barrett's defense fund that DDI would seize any of their donations
by buying a debt owed by the NCAHF, while omitting to mention that he
had tried to buy the debt and been refused.

“But, let's be reaIistic. Any money that changes hands in the Polevoy
v Grell and twenty John Does, case is going to be immediately claimed
by Ilena Rosenthal's attorneys, and they don't have to negotiate
anything. They have a Judgment, amounting to about $450,000 US -
which is good forever. They can hound Polevoy beyond his grave. In
short, Polevoy needs $450,000 US to make Ilena back off. So,
Polevoy's Mediation is, in legal language, going to pretty much say
`gimmee the money, (censored)...' Mediation is not going to change
the amount owed. Not at all.”
Just one among many problems, Mr. Bolen: The only visible action Ms.
Rosenthal is engaged in with regard to her debt is complaining about
it to strangers on the internet. As I have repeatedly warned her, her
public griping undermines her chances of succeeding in a collections
action, and gives reason to doubt whether she is, in fact, even trying
to collect it anymore. And as for your interpretation of Polevoy's
motives, that sounds a lot more like you than him.

“If the Polevoy v Grell case goes into Discovery phase then keep in
mind that the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal Court case is
running strong and every bit of that Discovery is subject to Federal
subpoena. It won't matter if there is a confidential settlement - the
Federal Court can simply order the records unsealed.
“And will Doctor's Data want this Discovery? Yup.”
At this point, Bolen's words not only bear no appreciable resemblance
to reality, but leave it unclear even which fantasy he is referring
to: When he mentions “discovery”, does he mean in the case of DDI v.
Barrett, or Polevoy v. Grell? In either case, of course, there is no
chance of Bolen being right: There will be NO discovery in DDI v.
Barrett, because the suit won't SURVIVE long enough for it. As for
Polevoy v. Grell, by BOLEN's accounts, it seems rather hazy whether
testimony that might be delivered should, technically, be CALLED
discovery.

"So, what will probably happen?
“My guess is that there will soon be money in Polevoy's hands to pay
off Ilena Rosenthal - Every bit of that $450,000 US. Stephen Barrett,
and the nineteen other `John Does,' simply cannot be dragged into
Depositions that would tie their activities into the assault against
Doctor's Data.
“So, where will the money come from? Well, maybe Doctor's Data will
subpoena THAT information, eh?
“Things are getting VERY interesting.
“So, stay tuned. There is more coming. Much more.”
Bolen continues to mix up his fantasies with each other as well as
reality. Is he saying Barrett's writings about DDI would be an issue
in Polevoy v. Grell? How, when the suit is entirely about events that
occurred years BEFORE said writings were posted? Is he saying that
DDI would try to subpoena information about a suit over events which
have no apparent relation to those of their own case, in which Barrett
was not even named as plaintiff or defendant? Well then, it would be
that much easier (if DDI could get even that far) to quash their
subpoenas.
And so, once again, even the cantankerous marsupial must wonder
whether Bolen is worth the trouble of taunting. As folk wisdom goes,
a good liar must have a good memory, and Bolen seems to be having
trouble remembering even what he is lying about.