Bolenator threatens innocent mailing list!

[David Brown]

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010
“I admit it.  I love telling a good story.  Give me a chance and I'll
drag out the good parts, throwing in laughs here and there. 
The story, of course, I'm telling today is about the Doctor's Data v
Stephen Barrett Federal Court case, which is, by far, the most
important court case involving health care in North America.”
Bolen certainly does enjoy telling stories. Too bad he can't be
bothered with researching them.

“Today I've got a BIG laugh for you - unless, of course, you are a
quackbuster - then you are not going to find this story funny at all -
you are going to, once again, call me names - nasty names.  Ready?”
No, Mr. Bolen, the big laugh was when Barrett showed that DDI didn't
file within the statute of limitations and asked the judge to make DDI
pay HIM. That was almost two months ago. Curious that you still
haven't mentioned that development.

“The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), also a Defendant
in this case, has a Twenty member Board of Directors.  I have a copy
of the last publicly listed Board just below.  In short, they are
named in this case because the so-called `Consumer Health Digest,'
supposedly a weekly newsletter to its approximate 12,000 subscribers,
is supposedly a joint effort of Stephen Barrett and the NCAHF, co-
edited by Barrett and William London.  Articles in that newsletter are
named in the case itself.”
Really? Where? I just did a search of the PDF of the first amended
complaint with the term “Digest”, and got no matches. Perhaps Bolen
is thinking of the original complaint, where the Digest was named as a
defendant, even though it is not a legal entity.

“I suspect that the mailing list for the so-called `Consumer Health
Digest,' once subpoenaed, and made public, is going to be a treasure
trove containing key information on how the quackbuster conspiracy
works.   People whose names, I think, are on this list, will become
targets of health freedom groups for years to come - and they should
be. Any, and every, government employee, at any level, on this list,
should immediately be a highly focused-on target.”
In other words, according to Bolen, simply being on a mailing list is
grounds to make someone a “target”. And what exactly would they be
“targets” of, Mr. Bolen? Just as well for you that there's no way DDI
would GET the list, even if their case wasn't already dead in the
water.

“In February of 2008 I released an article called ``The Six Components
of the 2008 Quackbuster Operation...' which was an outline of the
quackbuster conspiracy as it was operating then.  In it I talked about
the role of the so-called "Consumer Health Digest" and why it was
dangerous:
(1)  The Quackbuster Communication Network has five parts: 
(a)  The Consumer Health Digest is a newsletter with mailing list of
over twelve thousand names.  The newsletter is sent out weekly to the
mailing list.  The list is made up of lower and middle level employees
of county, state, and federal health administration and enforcement
agencies, and employees of health insurance and medical malpractice
insurance company employees.  The so-called "Digest" is a simple tool
to do two things:  (1) propagandize those lower level employees into
believing that the targets of the so-called articles are "bad people,"
criminals, doubtfuls, etc.,  and (2)  convince those employees that
they should devote time to investigating, prosecuting, or, at the very
least, watching, the targets constantly. 
If you, or yours, are the subject of any article on this newsletter -
beware, for the readers of these articles are not the brightest people
in the world, and would tend to believe what they read.”
Thanks to Tim for reminding everyone that he can't even come up with
an ORIGINAL conspiracy theory.

“You can see the danger to Doctor's Data in this publication, for,
obviously, if the readers were 82 IQ `Investigators' for State
agencies, dumb enough to take Barrett as an expert, those
investigators would come after any doctor in their State that used
Doctor's Data as a laboratory, falsely believing that Doctor's Data
was, as Barrett screeches, `conspiring to commit fraud, blah, blah,
blah...'”
Curiouser and curiouser... When exactly did Barrett claim to BE an
“expert” on chelation? All he has ever done is compile the opinions
of qualified sources, all of which- outside of the chelation therapy
cottage industry- say that the kind of tests performed by DDI are
worthless.

“So, you can see the importance in suing the NCAHF also, for,
allegedly, according to Barrett anyway, the newsletter was a joint
operation of Barrett, the NCAHF, and William London (who we will get
back to later).
The question arises; `What, exactly, was the NCAHF's role in the
newsletter?'  Personally, I suspect that Barrett was just using the
NCAHF name to puff up the newsletter's importance, but, then again, we
won't know until we ask the Board members of the NCAHF.

“But, let's look at the situation in an either/or format:  (1)  If the
NCAHF was actively involved in the newsletter then they have direct
liability for the contents, including any articles about doctor's
Data.  (2)  If, as I suspect, Barrett was using the NCAHF name to puff
up the newsletter's importance, and got no input from the NCAHF, then
the NCAHF is still liable for the content because the Board has
fiduciary responsibility for what is done in its name.
Period.”
I have been thinking something on the same lines myself: 1) If
Doctored Data, Incompetent paid Tim Bolen to lie about their case and
threaten reporters, the liars- I mean lawyers- should be sanctioned.
2) If DDI never paid Bolen, but refused to tell him to SHUT UP once he
started lying and threatening, they should be sanctioned.

“So, now comes the question `Are the NCAHF Board members PERSONALLY
LIABLE for what happened here?"  I believe they are - and below  will
tell you why I think so.”
No, Mr. Bolen, the only question now is whether DDI while even try to
salvage a claim out of the wreckage of their complaint.

“Those NCAHF Board Members should have done their `due diligence' a
long time ago.  They should have asked someone, with knowledge, what
two legal terms mean in terms of being a Board Member with
responsibilities of a non-profit corporation:  they are (1) `Fiduciary
Responsibility,' and (2)  `Piercing the corporate veil.' One activity,
or lack of it, leads to the other. 
“Legally speaking, what those terms mean is that if YOU accept a
position on a non-profit corporation, like the NCAHF Board of
Directors, then you accept, by law, the responsibilities that come
with that position.  The NCAHF, itself, is a Defendant in that lawsuit
for good reason.”
“Example:
(a)  The corporate veil can be pierced if a party is tricked or misled
into dealing with the corporation rather than an individual. Whenever
the corporation does correspondence with a third party, the officers
and directors of that company need to make it clear that they are
acting on behalf of the corporation and not themselves individually.
All the documents need to clearly be entered into on behalf of the
corporation otherwise there may be a conflict that could arise that
would pierce the corporate veil.
Stephen Barrett and Robert Baratz used the NCAHF name to sue over
forty Defendants in California without getting permission of the Board
and set themselves up as `Expert Witnesses' to make money for
themselves. “
Would this be the suit against the homeopaths. Well, Barrett is just
a psychiatrist, but then again, the defendants' products are JUST
WATER.

“(b)   If the corporation is set up to never make a profit or always
be insolvent it is considered too `thinly' capitalized. This could be
when the corporation is formed without sufficient capital to meet
potential liabilities and debts. This often occurs when an individual
or group of people uses a corporation as a form of shield from
liabilities instead of a legitimate business.
One of those cases mentioned above went against the Board, and the
Defendants were awarded over $100,000 - which was never paid by the
NCAHF, simply because they were undercapitilized `to meet potential
liabilities and debts.'"
Bolen keeps referring to this “judgment” (most notably claiming it
would somehow be used to seize Barrett's defense fund) yet he has yet
to present any evidence that it ever existed, let alone is still
extant. Could it be because Bolen has no evidence?

“(c)  When the corporation fails to follow corporate formalities where
the corporation is located, it can be pierced. A few of the corporate
formalities are meetings, minutes, stock ledger. If the corporate
entity fails to do some of these duties the judge can rule that it is
not a proper corporation.
I can't find any record that shows that the  NCAHF has had a formal
meeting of any kind, in any place, for a very long time.  A few years
ago their California non-profit corporate status was suspended for
exactly these reasons.”
Curious. I just checked http://kepler.sos.ca.go, and NCAHF shows as
still active. I also checked wikipedia, and they are described as
501c non-profit in the present tense. But, wait, according to Mr.
Bolen, Wikipedia is controlled by the quackbuster conspiracy,
apparently because that's the ONLY explanation why he's banned from
it.

“(c)  The biggest mistake small corporations usually make is not
keeping separate accounts for the corporation. If an individual moves
funds from their bank account into the corporate bank account, and
vise versa then the court will disregard the corporate entity.
Robert Baratz, as far as we know, kept the corporate records in a
cardboard box under his hair removal salon table.”
Bolen also keeps mentioning this mysterious hair salon, but never the
MEDICAL CENTER where Baratz is a recorded employee.

“(d)  If the corporation is engaged in illegal enterprise where it is
ruled that the corporation was setup as a sole means for those
involved to partake in an illegal activity, the corporate veil can be
pierced. For instance, a corporation will not be tried for murder. The
individuals responsible will be tried for it. The same thing can be
applied for all kinds of cases such as drug trafficking, etc.
Think RICO...”
Good idea! Let's start with Darrell Hickock, Jeffrey Levens and Tim
Bolen, oh, and why not throw in Russ Tanner?

“So, what does this mean?  In short, what  I think this means is that
the twenty million dollar claim Doctor's Data has against Barrett, the
NCAHF, and Quackwatch Inc. has found some potential payers.  Barrett
does not have enough assets to pay the claim, for sure.  But, now we
have the question `Do the nineteen other NCAHF Board Members have
enough assets?' Probably not, but their combined net worth ought to
add up to something.”
Wow, I can't even muster sarcasm for this one. I can only wonder, is
Bolen actually delusional enough to actually believe that DDI is
actually going to get ANYTHING from ANYONE for this sick joke? News
flash, they will be lucky if THEY don't have to pay damages.
“Hold it!  Don't start feeling sorry for these people, just yet.  You
haven't read the section below yet...
Remember, it MAY be that Barrett used the NCAHF name without
permission, but he did it for a long time.  Board Members have a
`Fiduciary Responsibility...'  They had every opportunity to stop him
from using their name... and did not.”

I could go on, as Bolen does on and on, but even I don't have the
patience to go through the rest of his screed, at least not at the
moment. I will only say this: Bolen is the one who has most abused
the law in this case. He took a case that was a SLAPP suit to begin
with, and started using it to threaten people whose only involvement
was reporting critically ABOUT the suit. I opposed him, confronted
him, and demanded repeatedly that he withdraw these threats. Instead,
he has stooped even lower, using an already-crushed case to threaten
people merely for being on a MAILING LIST. So, finally, I have a
question for Mr. Bolen: If you actually think DDI has or ever had the
slightest chance of getting away with their assault on Barrett's
rights, what exactly did you think would happen if the same strategies
were turned on you and your “millions of freedom fighters”?