Timeline of LIES by Tim Bolen about DDI v. Barrett
23 views
Skip to first unread message
David Brown
Jan 24, 2011, 7:47:33 PM1/24/11
to MYSTERY BOLEN THEATER!!
For a man who wouldn't shut up after being informed that I could (and
then did) report certain claims to the police as CRIMES, Tim Bolen has
been surprisingly quiet. Meanwhile, I am keeping up with actual
developments, thanks to a new PACER account. This has not only
allowed me to keep up with the latest developments in DDI v. Barrett,
but also given me a chance to look at a complete timeline of filings
in the case, and compare said filings to the “reports” made by Tim
Bolen. This has revealed some INTERESTING discrepancies:
July 9: “Doctor's Data is probably going to buy the $112,000 plus
interest Court Judgment against the NCAHF who owes six homeopathic
manufacturers for attorneys fees. That would give Doctor's Data
immediate access to Barrett's financial records without having to wait
for Discovery in this new case. Then they could start the process of
seizing any money they find including contributions for his legal
fund. Judgments last forever and are unstoppable.”
This is the most strikingly dishonest and MALICIOUS statement to come
from Tim Bolen, who clearly hoped that his LIE would STOP DONATIONS TO
BARRETT'S DEFENSE FUND. I easily established that, if such a debt
existed, it would not in any way jeopardize Barrett's defense fund.
Then Bolen was dumb enough to disclose that he had tried and failed to
buy the debt. I mention this mostly to illustrate how sociopathic and
stupid Bolen is.
July 30: “I guess Doctor's Data wants to use a kinder, gentler
approach then I do. They gave Stephen Barrett sixty (60) days,
instead of twenty-one (21) to respond to the Federal lawsuit they
filed against him. The sixty day period started on June 29th, 2010 so
Barrett's answer is not due until August 30th, 2010. I'll connect you
to a Court Document about this in a minute.”
This was Bolen's “cover your butt” statement when his FIRST prediction
of a default judgment failed. His response begs a significant
question: Why did he NOT acknowledge this on or immediately after July
21, when the waiver of service was filed? And how convenient that, by
waiting to admit his failed prediction, he allowed Heidi Stephenson's
pathetic July 25 post based on his already-failed “prediction”, which
is STILL popping up on new sites.
August 3: “Only Stephen Barrett, himself, as an individual, was given
60 days, instead of 21, to formally Respond to a lawsuit. Neither of
the other two Defendants, Quackwatch, Inc, nor the National Council
Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) was given any extra time. They have 21
days from the time of service to hire legal counsel and formally
Respond. Well guess what? Quackwatch, Inc. was served on July 6th,
2010. Twenty-one days later was July 28th, 2010. So - Quackwatch,
Inc now has a big problem.”
Surprisingly, I find that this was true. However, I find that the
record filed with the court noted that the summons was being sent to
Barrett, which would suggest that the court did not see any strong
distinction between Barrett and Quackwatch, Inc. So, Where did Bolen
get the notion that the court would necessarily balk at giving
“Quackwatch, Inc.” the same accommodations shown to Barrett?
August 25: “Simply, Stephen Barrett could not afford to hire a law
firm to Defend.”
This came as part of Bolen's claims that Botts was incompetent to
represent Stephen Barrett, and was going to be rejected by the court,
and therefore Barrett would lose by default judgment. As usual,
anyone Bolen wished to intimidate took it as a given that he was
wrong. I can know establish that Bolen KNEW he was wrong, or at best
had no excuse for being ignorant of the facts. Specifically, on
AUGUST 18, Peter Katsaros filed to appear on Barrett's behalf.
Therefore, a week before this gibbering from Bolen, it was already ON
RECORD that Barrett had a different counsel.
August 27: “One of the documents, this one filed by Michael K. Botts,
Esq. is a plea to the Court for Reconsideration, with explanations, to
be allowed to represent Barrett at all. It seems the Chicago Court
rejected Botts.”
Even at this late date, Bolen omitted to mention the two OTHER
attorneys who had ALREADY filed for Barrett.
September 22: “So, Barrett has 8 days left before he, and his
operation, go into Default - and that will be the end of that.”
It is curious that Bolen chose to make another prediction of defeat by
default at this time. On September 18, HE reported that DDI made a
motion to file a second amended complaint. So, by what “reasoning”
did he conclude that the judge would still require Barrett to answer
the PREVIOUS complaint, let alone do it by the original deadline?
October 5: “You're right. Stephen Barrett has, so far, it seems,
missed the Thursday, September 30th deadline to Respond to the
Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit. So far.”
Now this nonsense was posted after a second amended complaint was
filed on September 28. So, Bolen expected people to believe that a
judge was going to enforce a deadline set for a complaint that had
already been formally supplanted, and make a default judgment for not
answering the actual, current complaint within 48 HOURS of its
filing. Apparently, he also expected people not to notice that, by
claiming a September 30 deadline, he clearly assumed that the court
would count from the filing of the FIRST AMENDED complaint, NOT the
original one, and that by HIS reasoning, Barrett would have had until
OCTOBER 30th to answer the SECOND amended complaint.
October 10: ““Finally - a Response from Stephen Barrett et al, in the
Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit. In essence, Barrett's legal
team took forty-four (44) pages to say `We deny everything. So
there.'”
This is perhaps the most amusing of Bolen's errors: He very
specifically mentions the count of “fourty-four (44) pages”, but the
document's actual page count is FORTY-ONE pages. With such
inattentiveness, his failure to take any notice of Barrett's
affirmative defense might be excused as mere ineptitude. Except, I
had already “scooped” him about it.
That catches up to recent developments, which I plan to discuss
shortly. I hope that Mr. Bolen's silence is a sign that he is finally
recognizing that either a) DDI's case has no chance of surviving to
trial, let alone winning, or at least that b) spreading false
information, defaming the defendant and telling third parties they
will be added as defendants only diminishes DDI's chances of getting
anywhere with their case. The alternatives are c) he is waiting for a
more convenient moment, d) the IRS confiscated his computer equipment,
e) he is hospitalized for a medical problem or f) he is dead. In any
event, if he does turn up again before DDI's suit meets its long-
overdue demise, I will be waiting for him.
then did) report certain claims to the police as CRIMES, Tim Bolen has
been surprisingly quiet. Meanwhile, I am keeping up with actual
developments, thanks to a new PACER account. This has not only
allowed me to keep up with the latest developments in DDI v. Barrett,
but also given me a chance to look at a complete timeline of filings
in the case, and compare said filings to the “reports” made by Tim
Bolen. This has revealed some INTERESTING discrepancies:
July 9: “Doctor's Data is probably going to buy the $112,000 plus
interest Court Judgment against the NCAHF who owes six homeopathic
manufacturers for attorneys fees. That would give Doctor's Data
immediate access to Barrett's financial records without having to wait
for Discovery in this new case. Then they could start the process of
seizing any money they find including contributions for his legal
fund. Judgments last forever and are unstoppable.”
This is the most strikingly dishonest and MALICIOUS statement to come
from Tim Bolen, who clearly hoped that his LIE would STOP DONATIONS TO
BARRETT'S DEFENSE FUND. I easily established that, if such a debt
existed, it would not in any way jeopardize Barrett's defense fund.
Then Bolen was dumb enough to disclose that he had tried and failed to
buy the debt. I mention this mostly to illustrate how sociopathic and
stupid Bolen is.
July 30: “I guess Doctor's Data wants to use a kinder, gentler
approach then I do. They gave Stephen Barrett sixty (60) days,
instead of twenty-one (21) to respond to the Federal lawsuit they
filed against him. The sixty day period started on June 29th, 2010 so
Barrett's answer is not due until August 30th, 2010. I'll connect you
to a Court Document about this in a minute.”
This was Bolen's “cover your butt” statement when his FIRST prediction
of a default judgment failed. His response begs a significant
question: Why did he NOT acknowledge this on or immediately after July
21, when the waiver of service was filed? And how convenient that, by
waiting to admit his failed prediction, he allowed Heidi Stephenson's
pathetic July 25 post based on his already-failed “prediction”, which
is STILL popping up on new sites.
August 3: “Only Stephen Barrett, himself, as an individual, was given
60 days, instead of 21, to formally Respond to a lawsuit. Neither of
the other two Defendants, Quackwatch, Inc, nor the National Council
Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) was given any extra time. They have 21
days from the time of service to hire legal counsel and formally
Respond. Well guess what? Quackwatch, Inc. was served on July 6th,
2010. Twenty-one days later was July 28th, 2010. So - Quackwatch,
Inc now has a big problem.”
Surprisingly, I find that this was true. However, I find that the
record filed with the court noted that the summons was being sent to
Barrett, which would suggest that the court did not see any strong
distinction between Barrett and Quackwatch, Inc. So, Where did Bolen
get the notion that the court would necessarily balk at giving
“Quackwatch, Inc.” the same accommodations shown to Barrett?
August 25: “Simply, Stephen Barrett could not afford to hire a law
firm to Defend.”
This came as part of Bolen's claims that Botts was incompetent to
represent Stephen Barrett, and was going to be rejected by the court,
and therefore Barrett would lose by default judgment. As usual,
anyone Bolen wished to intimidate took it as a given that he was
wrong. I can know establish that Bolen KNEW he was wrong, or at best
had no excuse for being ignorant of the facts. Specifically, on
AUGUST 18, Peter Katsaros filed to appear on Barrett's behalf.
Therefore, a week before this gibbering from Bolen, it was already ON
RECORD that Barrett had a different counsel.
August 27: “One of the documents, this one filed by Michael K. Botts,
Esq. is a plea to the Court for Reconsideration, with explanations, to
be allowed to represent Barrett at all. It seems the Chicago Court
rejected Botts.”
Even at this late date, Bolen omitted to mention the two OTHER
attorneys who had ALREADY filed for Barrett.
September 22: “So, Barrett has 8 days left before he, and his
operation, go into Default - and that will be the end of that.”
It is curious that Bolen chose to make another prediction of defeat by
default at this time. On September 18, HE reported that DDI made a
motion to file a second amended complaint. So, by what “reasoning”
did he conclude that the judge would still require Barrett to answer
the PREVIOUS complaint, let alone do it by the original deadline?
October 5: “You're right. Stephen Barrett has, so far, it seems,
missed the Thursday, September 30th deadline to Respond to the
Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit. So far.”
Now this nonsense was posted after a second amended complaint was
filed on September 28. So, Bolen expected people to believe that a
judge was going to enforce a deadline set for a complaint that had
already been formally supplanted, and make a default judgment for not
answering the actual, current complaint within 48 HOURS of its
filing. Apparently, he also expected people not to notice that, by
claiming a September 30 deadline, he clearly assumed that the court
would count from the filing of the FIRST AMENDED complaint, NOT the
original one, and that by HIS reasoning, Barrett would have had until
OCTOBER 30th to answer the SECOND amended complaint.
October 10: ““Finally - a Response from Stephen Barrett et al, in the
Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit. In essence, Barrett's legal
team took forty-four (44) pages to say `We deny everything. So
there.'”
This is perhaps the most amusing of Bolen's errors: He very
specifically mentions the count of “fourty-four (44) pages”, but the
document's actual page count is FORTY-ONE pages. With such
inattentiveness, his failure to take any notice of Barrett's
affirmative defense might be excused as mere ineptitude. Except, I
had already “scooped” him about it.
That catches up to recent developments, which I plan to discuss
shortly. I hope that Mr. Bolen's silence is a sign that he is finally
recognizing that either a) DDI's case has no chance of surviving to
trial, let alone winning, or at least that b) spreading false
information, defaming the defendant and telling third parties they
will be added as defendants only diminishes DDI's chances of getting
anywhere with their case. The alternatives are c) he is waiting for a
more convenient moment, d) the IRS confiscated his computer equipment,
e) he is hospitalized for a medical problem or f) he is dead. In any
event, if he does turn up again before DDI's suit meets its long-
overdue demise, I will be waiting for him.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages