Oct. 22- "Discovery"- Bolen is a sadistic thug

[David Brown]

“I monitor and provoke, sometimes openly, sometimes secretly, the
discussion activity of the organization calling itself the
`quackbusters.'  It is not easy, for, in a way, it is like listening
in on a group of pedophiles discussing their plans for our
neighborhood children.  Keep this comparison in mind.”
So, Bolen is saying is that he finds critical discussion of a public
proceeding as offensive as the sexual abuse of children... How does
that make anyone but HIM look bad?

“Recently, of course, I have been monitoring quackbuster discussions
about the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal Court case.
In my early days of adulthood I was recruited by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department to become a Deputy Sheriff.  Since there
was a waiting list for the Sheriff's Academy certain candidates,
myself included, were offered temporary positions as Corrections
Officers (prison guards) at local minimum security prisons.  Boy, was
that an eye opener.  There is no better way to adjust a young white
upper middle class male's view of humanity then to assign him to
guard, six days a week, sans weapons, America's criminal population.
Minimum security prisons are not just for car thieves, and other petty
criminals.  They were at the time, and probably still are, a half-way
house for those hard time boys, with tattoos on their faces, coming
into their last twelve months at the maximum security facilities - the
people who, within months of their release, will kill, rape, rob,
maim, bludgeon some unsuspecting citizens, and be heading back into
the system.  They are not a lot of trouble in this situation because
they want to get back out on the street.  But, you can imagine the
tension among the prisoners and the guards.
The one thing I will never forget is the smell of a prison.  As we all
know, people with a disease, as it progresses, begin to smell a
certain way.  It is a combination of things that causes that.  In
prison stress levels are VERY high, and fear is a big issue.  People
on prison  are afraid to sleep.  It is absolutely true that you can
smell fear.
Fear, in prison, is palpable.
When I say that the "quackbuster's" fear is palpable, I mean exactly
that.”
And is the point of this story that Bolen has always ENJOYED keeping
others confined and in fear? One might want to look into why he
didn't last in law enforcement...

“So, what would cause such an increase in their fear factor?  One
simple thing - The recent words, October 13th, 2010, of the  Doctor's
Data v Stephen Barrett  Federal Court regarding the case.  The Court
said: 
`Proposed discovery schedule to be submitted to the court by
12/6/2010. Status hearing set for 12/8/2010 at 9:30 AM.'”
Really? PROVE IT. And, if you can do that, then explain why it took
more than a week for you to make any mention of it.

"Huh?  Why would these, seemingly innocuous words, generate gut-
wrenching, instant, diarrhea in the quackbuster ranks?  Two reasons:
(1)  The entire quackbuster operation is a misinformation system where
real information is spun and tightly controlled.  Quackbuster upper
ranks give the soldiers only the info they want them to have, with
only the spin they want them to have.  Quackbuster soldiers, for
instance, found out about the lawsuit from my article.  Then five days
later the "spin" began with Orac the Nipple Ripper's article.  The
primary `spin' was that `the case has no merit.  The Judge will throw
it out as soon as he reads it, Doctor's Data will have to pay fines,
and Barrett will sue them for malicious prosecution. Blah, blah,
blah..."”
To be sure, it will be quite surprising if the case gets as far as
discovery. But that only means that a judge did not find it meritless
on such a fundamental level that he refused even to allow it to go to
the stage of preparation for trial. Oh, and the outpourings of
support and concern for Barrett clearly began when Barrett gave his
own account of the suit, including his report of attorney Jeffrey
Levens' Kafkaesque decision to file suit before saying what statements
DDI wished Barrett to retract. So, who was it who tipped off TIM
BOLEN about the suit? Might it be someone working for DDI?

“Of course, none of that happened, so now they are very nervous.
(2)  The worst possible scenario for the quackbusters is developing. 
In the court statement above, what `Proposed discovery schedule to be
submitted to the court by 12/6/2010' means is that soon the unraveling
of the quackbuster conspiracy will begin using the `discovery'
provisions of a Federal Court case.  In short, Doctor's Data will
demand of Barrett, and Barrett will be forced to answer, providing
documents, questions about all of his activities at issue in the
lawsuit.”
Bolen neglects to note that DDI will be under the same kind of
scrutiny from Barrett. Failure to comply will be penalized. Questions
could include, “Did you hire Tim Bolen?”

“Under Federal Rules:
`Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including
the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location
of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good
cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All
discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).'
More, not just Stephen Barrett will be forced to provide information. 
Those accused in the lawsuit of acting conspiratorially will also be
forced to provide information.  It is this action that will be used to
gather data regarding the complicity of others in Barrett's
activities.  For instance, Doctor's Data will no doubt demand:”
Before tearing into Bolen's froth, let's set down a basic issue:
Subpoenas are subject to careful review. They can be disputed not
only by the side for whom the information is relevant, but by a third
party who may be subpoenaed as a witness. For example, when Clifford
Shoemaker tried to subpoena blogger Kathleen Seidel, Seidel herself
successfully motioned to quash it. Then the court sanctioned the
attorney. That is why DDI is very unlikely to take any action against
those whose only role in events has been reporting critically about
this case. Now, to particulars:

“(a)   the names on the Barrett's Consumer's Digest newsletter email
list.”
Given that Consumer's Digest was DROPPED AS A DEFENDANT FOUR MONTHS
AGO, I would expect DDI to have a very hard time convincing a judge to
allow subpoenas of their records. It would be especially difficult to
justify their subscribers' list in particular as relevant to
establishing any point in the suit, unless it were simply how many
people received one of the publications the suit was filed over.

“(b)  the names of any and all contributors, including amounts, to
Barrett's Legal Defense Fund.”
Really? How would donations made AFTER a suit was filed have ANY
provable relevance to the events the suit was filed ABOUT? And why
shouldn't a judge respond to such a request by not only refusing, but
severely sanctioning DDI's lawyers for acting with every appearance of
malicious intent to scare away donors from Barrett's defense? For
that matter, since Bolen clearly HAS tried REPEATEDLY to scare away
donors, why shouldn't the judge sanction the lawyers anyway, just for
failing to tell him to SHUT UP??

“(c)  The names of everyone, and every discussion group, website, or
blog, linked to Barrett's websites.”
Again, why would this be relevant? Especially when the suit concerns
only a handful of Barrett's many, many posts. For that matter, what
would stop DDI from gathering this information WITHOUT formal legal
proceedings? After all, links between sites are a matter of public
record.

“(d)  the names of everyone who assists Barrett, in any way, to write,
edit, post, and position Barrett's articles on search engines,
including the identities of Barrett's SEO, SMM, experts.”
Before approving such a request, a judge can be expected to request,
at a minimum, evidence that Barrett has in fact received any such
services. Whining that his posts are “too high” is NOT going to cut
it.

“(e)  the names of Barrett's Wikipedia information management team.”
Once again, such a request can only be made with convincing evidence
that such a “team” exists. Even if that could be established, the
chances of being approved would appear negligible, given that the suit
does NOT involve any content of Wikipedia.
“(f)  all communications, including telephone records, that would show
communications (recruitment) with potential or actual plaintiffs suing
Doctor's Data, or solicited to sue Doctor's Data using Barrett's
recommended attorneys.”
It is noteworthy that this is the FIRST of the things Bolen says “
Doctor's Data will no doubt demand” that has ANY obvious bearing on
ANY of the allegations made in the suit. Unfortunately, there is no
obvious legal reason why the alleged activities would represent
wrongdoing on Barrett's part. As I discussed in my examiner.com page,
there is a long history of “non-profit” participation in lawsuits, and
only very limited restrictions upon it.

“(g)  all communications with any local, state, or Federal agency
where Barrett may have purported to claim expertise, or where a
complaint was filed by Barrett and his co-conspirators, in regard to
Doctor's Data.”
Curious: I examined the first amended complaint VERY closely, and I
don't recall any mention of an action by a “local, state or federal
agency”. In any event, if DDI believes that Barrett has contacted a
government agency inappropriately, then they can always contact said
agency themselves.

“(h)  videotaped Depositions of Barrett and his co-conspirators.”
Shouldn't that be “alleged co-conspirators”? And what difference does
it make whether the depositions are on video? And for that matter,
who's still using videoTAPE??

“(i)  and much, much more.”
Or, far, far more likely, much, much less.
 
“What will be accomplished with this Discovery...
Discovery, in this case, I think, will focus on two major areas:
(1)  proving up the case on the original Complaint, and
(2)  gathering the information to be used to justify another Amended
Complaint against NEW Defendants.”
Rhetorical questions:
i. Why should anyone, including DDI, CARE what a 67-year-old, self-
described “crisis management specialist” widely regarded as dishonest
and/or delusional “thinks” will happen?
ii. What, exactly, is “proving up”?
iii. Why shouldn't a judge treat Bolen's threats against people who
aren't even defendants as grounds to REFUSE discovery on many lines?

“Federal Court rules allow one Amended Complaint with no
restrictions.  Beyond that the Plaintiff must ask for permission from
the Court to file another.  Those requests must come with justifying
information.  Discovery will ask Barrett and the others just how
Barrett's article float to the top of the search engines.  The answers
to those questions will flush out the additional, currently hidden,
conspirators.”
Now this, in fact, gets to a fundamental problem with DDI's suit:
Where effective investigations start with a narrow focus, the suit
instead throws out a hastily assembled, unwieldy mass of allegations
and accusations, and then requests permission for a massive fishing
expedition to test whether ANY of them MIGHT be true. Even if their
complaint against Barrett were justified, this approach to proving it
is about as inauspicious as hunting field mice with a backhoe.
Adding defendants will only multiply the mass of documents they will
have to sift through.

“As i pointed out before no one would much care if a rancid old fart
like Barrett wrote his hateful articles if he ended up on page 82 of
Google.  But, he doesn't.  He is always on page one - and that means
co-conspirators.”
Let's go over this one more time: I have compared my own and Bolen's
postings as ranked in google. I have led frequently, and so has
Bolen. I can testify that I do not have the benefit of any
“conspiracy” (at least that I know of). So, I can see no reason to
assume, on those grounds alone, that anyone else does either. Before
Bolen continues claiming otherwise, why doesn't he explain what HE
does to keep HIS rankings up?

“Search Engine Optimization (SEO) isn't just about writing an article
and publishing it on your website.  A lot of professional work needs
to be done to move that article, every time, to the first pages of
Google and the other search engines.  The people that do that for
Stephen Barrett are just as guilty as Barrett - and, hopefully, they
have VERY DEEP pockets so they can help pay the 20 million dollar
claim.”
And now let's go over something else: The “charge” of rigging google
searches is conspicuously NOT in any version of the complaint. If it
were, and the only “evidence” was something like Bolen's griping, the
judge would have had one more very good reason to throw out the case.
Since DDI has not seen fit to make this an issue in their complaint,
they are in no position to bring it up now.

“Now comes a really FUN part of the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett
Federal Court case.  Barrett's minions and sycophants were certain
that this issue would never touch them.  So much so that they were
convinced, after the lawsuit was filed, to attempt to permanently
destroy Doctor's Data using an Intentional malice `Googlebomb,'  and
more.
Now, their time is coming.  And, they are squeaking and trembling in
disbelief.  It is really fun to watch.”
And NOW he says it. He thinks that those he disagrees with are in
fear, and that they are about to face at least inconvenience and
possibly being stripped of their rightful possessions. And he finds
it, in his own words, “FUN”.
With words like these from Bolen, I am hard-pressed to say anything
worse against him. But I will say this: The kinds of villains that
disturb me the most are the ones that aren't powerful or smart, but
that clearly enjoy their villainy, especially when it involves hurting
other people. The “Scorpio Killer” in Dirty Harry is one that has
stayed very strong to me for a long time. My own characters “Tweedle
Dum”, “Tweedle Dee” and Alice are recent examples that I personally
consider among my most unnerving. I have little doubt why I react so
strongly to these kinds of characters: They remind me of the people
that I had to share the elementary school playground with. And Bolen
seems to be trying very hard to fill the role perfectly.
So, in closing, I have this to say to mister Bolen: Forget your
paranoid/narcissistic fantasies about “conspiracies”. With someone
like you on “their” side, DDI and Jeffrey Levens need no such thing to
add to their misfortunes. I, personally, don't need any
encouragement, let alone pay. All I have to do is think of the
Pariahs, or Scorpio, or a boy named Robbie, and I know what I would
want to do with you. And I can think of much worse than your site
being wiped off the internet. But, it will be a start.