Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
For thirty-one months, now, in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett Federal Court case, we’ve been watching Stephen Barrett try desperately to delay the inevitable demise of his quackwatch operation.
He’s failing.
The other Defendants in the case, the National Council Against Health Fraud Inc (NCAHF), and Quackwatch, Inc. are VERY, VERY worried – and they certainly should be, for nothing is going their way.
Nothing.
Thirty-one months ago, on Friday June 18th, 2010, Doctor’s Data Laboratory filed an eleven count lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Stephen Barrett, MD, the National Council Against Health Fraud Inc (NCAHF), Consumer Health Digest, and Quackwatch, Inc.
Except for Barrett’s direct funding for the lawsuit Defense source, it looks, to me, like every one of his supporters have totally, and completely, abandoned him. From a flurry of “skeptic” support articles at first, like this one I talked about, these days you don’t hear a word.
I’ve written, including this article, forty-nine pieces on this subject, outlining, in very interesting detail, the assault on Barrett and his sleaze operation. Click on any of the article titles in the box on the right, all listed in chronological order
So, where are we?
Yes, the case is stuck in Discovery. But, what does that mean?
I have here, in my hand, a copy of a document filed with the court by Doctor’s Data’s attorneys showing the court that Barrett, and all, are REFUSING to answer required Discovery demands. The document outlines seventy-three (73) specific situations, all of which, themselves, chart the sleazy conspiracy.
I’m not surprised that Barrett, et al, would withhold these documents intentionally, and attempt to face the consequences the federal judge might invoke – like jail time. For the questions Doctor’s Data demands answers to, if answered, would give Doctor’s Data’s attorneys the evidence they need to, quite rightfully, I think, invoke RICO, both Civil and Criminal. And, of course, provide the solid evidence a federal jury in this case itself, what it needs to award Doctor’s Data the Damages it asks (8.9 million US) including Punitive Damages at three times the actual damage award (26.7 million), for a total of 35.6 million US.
Of course Barrett doesn’t have that kind of money, so, as you will read between the lines, so to speak, in the Discovery Demands, you will see that Doctor’s Data is looking for the legal “Deep Pockets” behind Barrett – those that DO have the money, and are part of the conspiracy.
Let’s look at what Barrett, et al, are trying to hide…
Let’s look at the seventy three specific demands for information, individually. In the first part (from 1 to 33), the information demands are certainly interesting, and tell a story. But, starting at 34, things get VERY interesting – right through 42. Then very quickly, comes another bombshell at 46.
(1) E-Mail exchanged between Barrett and Baratz – Doctor’s Data points out that there are, very, clearly, significant numbers of missing emails between these two dweebs. Barrett, as we already know, is in the habit of filing complaints against people with various agencies, and then offers Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD (bobbie baratz) as a witness for the agency. See this Texas article.
(2) DEF 04728-32 – DDI wants an un-redacted copy of this complaint filed against DDI in New York State.
(3) Barrett’s email with attorney Wilzig plus documents responding to request 110 – Question one hundred ten (110) and one hundred eleven (111) ask, again, about communications with anyone suing Doctor’s Data.
(4) Follow up Barrett received from Ms Astin of NYDH – Interesting situation.
(5) DEF 04583 – Emails exchanges between Barrett and the State of oregon regarding DDI.
(6) Coman/Barrett/Wilzig emails – A case where Barrett, Baratz, and David Wilzig were involved in suing DDI. DDI wants to see all of the emails between the parties.
(7) Emails between Vinny Tidwell and Barrett – Tidwell is suing DDI in Indiana.
(8) DEF 0476 – All emails between Barrett and Oregon State Public Health laboratory regarding DDI.
(9) Emails to Consumer Health Digest subscribers – DDI wants the email list. I suspect the list is made up of county health department employees, state Medical Board members, investigators, and decision makers at individual medical boards, etc., and federal agency employees – it is, I think, how Barrett, et al, propagandize county, state, and federal employees into believing whomever Barrett, et al, is currently attacking is a bad person.
(10) Email exchanges with Mr. Stemp’s attorneys – Stemp is suing DDI in Texas. Barrett was a PAID consultant.
(11) Barrett’s emails with Todd Barnes – another lawsuit.
(12) Barrett’s emails with John Acres – regarding a Nova Scotia complaint.
(13) Documents responding to request No 6 – All documents with any Illinois agency. Barrett, laugh here, is REFUSING to produce any documents without a release from the State.
(14 thru 17) Documents from – the States of Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Washington, Tennessee, Indiana, and Georgia. Barrett, laugh here, is REFUSING to produce any documents without a release from the State.
(18) Documents responding to request No 23 to Barrett – Barrett has not yet produced any information regarding his communications with individuals he counseled to sue DDI. He denies there are any – but DDI has copies of some already.
(19) Documents responding to request No 27 to Barrett – Barrett has not yet produced any information regarding his experts and consultants he claims to want to use in this case, or had used for his articles.
(20) Documents responding to request No 45 to Barrett – Communications with David Wilzig regarding court cases he is involved in with David Wilzig. Barrett refuses.
(21) Documents responding to request No 46 to Barrett – Barrett has not yet produced any information regarding his complaints to Medical Boards, at all.
(22) Documents responding to request No 47 to Barrett – Communications with Plaintiff.
(23) Documents responding to request No 53 to Barrett – income received from NCAHF.
(24) Documents responding to request No 54 to Barrett – documents regarding income for Barrett.
(25 thru 31) Documents responding to request No 59, thru 65 to Barrett – Barrett is refusing to provide all versions of Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
(32) Documents responding to request No 69 to Barrett – All documents exchanged with attorneys suing DDI.
(33) Documents responding to request No 81, thru 84 to Barrett – Barrett is refusing to provide agreements with his experts or consultants.
(34) Documents responding to request No 89 to Barrett – Quote: “Barrett has not produced documents and agreements pertaining to any person who assists him or contributes to his work on his websites. Barrett has stated that his son, Dr. Baratz’s son, and others assist him or contribute to Barrett’s work but no documents have been produced to evidence the capacity in which each assists him.”
(35) Documents responding to request No 90 to Barrett – Quote: “Barrett has not produced documents evidencing donations and contributions he, or any of his websites, have received. Plaintiff has learned from a subpoena to PayPal that over the years Barrett has received more than $70,000 through PayPal and has encouraged donors to send checks and cash directly to him. However, he has not produced any document evidencing donations received or evidence that such income has been reported.”
(36) Documents responding to request No 91 to Barrett – Documents about referral agreements with others.
(37) Documents responding to request No 93 to Barrett – Documents about Barrett’s hosting service for Quackwatch.com, or Quackwatch.org. This is VERY, VERY important. Perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT thing. Why? I don’t believe, even for a second, that Barrett actually runs the Quackwatch operation. He is too stupid, ignorant, untrained, and bigoted. He is a man who failed at his medical career years ago. I think he is simply a dupe, a front man, a frontis-piece. I don’t think he even maintains the websites himself, nor writes, or edits, most , or perhaps ANY, of the articles.
Every website ISP has an automatic feature, called a Log, which records the date, time, and IP location from which a web page is edited from. I’d be willing to bet that an examination of that ISP Log would show that, in fact, NONE of those anti-DDI articles on Quackwatch or the other Barrett controlled websites originated, or were edited, from Barrett’s IP address. Think about that…
So, where did they originate from? Guess… After all, isn’t the Doctor’s Data lab test about finding heavy metals in the body -specifically mercury, as in Thimerosal, the preservative in vaccines? Do I need to hand you, my readers, a card that says “Vaccine Industry?”
(38) Documents responding to request No 97 to Barrett – membership info on NCAHF and Quackwatch, Inc.
(39) Documents responding to request No 98 to Barrett – Documents about Barrett’s relationship with Prometheus Books of Paul Kurtz. Barrett claimed to be an editor for Prometheus Books. Which books? The sex books?
(40) Documents responding to request No 99 to Barrett – communications with Barrett’s so-called legal or Scientific Advisory Boards.
(41) Documents responding to request No 100 to Barrett – communications with Barrett’s so-called legal or Scientific Advisory Boards about exhibits A thru G.
(42) Documents responding to request No 109 to Barrett – communications with bloggers like Orac the Nipple Ripper, Liz Ditz, or any of the “skeptics” who attacked Doctor’s Data before or after the lawsuit was filed.
(43) Documents responding to request No 111 to Barrett – communications with attorneys.
(44) Documents responding to request No 113 to Barrett – financial statements of co-defendants.
(45) Documents responding to request No 116 to Barrett – communications with Elizabeth Woeckner.
(46) Documents responding to request No 118 to Barrett – VERY, VERY IMPORTANT – Barrett has not produced documents pertaining to who is funding his legal defense.
(47 and 48) Documents responding to request No 121 and 123 to Barrett – maintenance items.
(49) Documents responding to request No 1 to NCAHF – VERY, VERY IMPORTANT – regarding questions about who funds them.
(50 thru 56) Documents responding to all requests to NCAHF – similar to those asked to Barrett above.
(57 thru 69) Documents responding to all requests to Quackwatch Inc. – similar to those asked to Barrett above.
(70) Copies of all attachments to all emails and letters produced in discovery – 40% of Barrett’s emails to others had attachments which WERE NOT produced. Barrett’s attorneys claimed they had been “disassociated,” whatever that means.
(71) Evidence of Fraud and Conspiracy supposedly committed by Plaintiff – This whole case is about Barrett, et al, accusing Doctor’s Data of criminal fraud, and conspiracy with its doctor clients to commit that fraud. Barrett, nor any of the Defendants have produced any such evidence.
(72) Documents prior to 2005 – Defendants unilaterally shortened the relevant discovery period from 2000 to 2005. DDI wants all of the documents.
(73) Barrett and Quackwatch, Inc. financial information – Quote: “Plaintiff requests inspection of Barrett’s complete financial information, including his bank statements, i naddition to his tax records. Defendants have not produced any information concerning donations. Plaintiff learned from documents received pursuant to subpoena from Paypal that Barrett/Quackwatch have received more than $70,000 since 2004 through PayPal. Plaintiff suspects Barrett/Quackwatch received just as much, if not more, through donations made by cash, chaeck, money order, as each of Barrett’s websites encourage the mailing of cash. and check donations. In addition, Barrett’s bank statements will show any larger payments Barrett may have recieved for his consulting or referral activities.
Furthermore, Barrett’s tax returns contain redacted information which needs to be unredacted.”
Where will this case go next?
It could go any number of directions. First, and most obvious, is the addition of more Defendants, and perhaps more charges, by the Plaintiff filing for permission from the court to file another Amended Complaint. Why would they do this? Because, the Plaintiff, Doctor’s Data, is going to win this case easily. Winning is not the problem – collecting the Damages awarded is. They need deeper pockets.
Who would be added? Most obvious is attorney David Wilzig and Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD. Less obvious, so far, are Barrett’s paymasters – who are very much trying to hide, and Barrett is trying DESPERATELY to keep them from being discovered.
But, where I’d like it to go is to RICO – both Civil and Criminal. Think “Indictment.”
Yeah…
Stay tuned. And smile.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate
– See more at: https://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor’s-Data-v-Barrett/discovery%20dam%20burst6.htm#sthash.euOu5Ww6.dpuf