Warning – sarcasm present.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
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.” And, it took Barrett one hundred and seventeen (117) days to come up with that answer. This from a guy who, Court documents show, was commenting on cases filed against his victims up to one day (-1) before the actual filing.
Strangely, the Response was filed, not by Barrett’s so-called “lead” attorney Micheal K. Botts but by the local counsel Peter M. Katsaros, a senior partner at Golan and Christie in Chicago. Hmmm?
It looks like Barrett’s legal bills are piling up.
You can read the whole boring 44 page Response by clicking here. The whole thing consists of copying the words in the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and then saying, after each paragraph: “we deny that, blah, blah, blah…” My – guess – about two hours worth of legal work. And, that took 117 days?
None of the vitriolic that Barrett spewed out to his support network was present in the Response. No complaints that his “1st Amendment rights were being violated by the suit,” nor any of his “show me where I was wrong” crap, was in the answer – and, it was only 44 pages.
My view – the Response was limp. Flaccid. Uninspired. Drooping. Sagging. Lifeless.
So, what comes next?
I suspect that two things will almost immediately happen:
(1) Barrett’s legal team, if Barrett can come up with more money – and that may be in question, will probably write a “Motion to Dismiss” the case in its entirety. Since this Motion has no chance of success, and is, for all practical purposes, just an attempt, at this point, for the Defense to get an early glimpse at the Plaintiff’s case, they may not do this.
(2) Doctor’s Data’s legal team will most likely file a “Motion for a Preliminary Injunction” as described in Count Eleven in the Second Amended Complaint.
It is the second action a “Motion for a Preliminary Injunction“, at this point, which, I think, will be the most interesting.
Why? Because of two things:
(a) There is an unusual situation here. Normally, when the Plaintiff seeks an Injunction it is to interrupt one simple thing from one simple Defendant. In Barrett’s case the Injunction would be to force Barrett to remove the offending articles. But, as we know, something happened right after the case was filed and it became public. Barrett’s support network, immediately following the filing of the case, organized to increase the damage 50-fold.
(b) the Plaintiff needs to consider the mechanism involved in how Barrett’s crap floats to the top of the search engines. The two things are related. In short, the same people that organized and participated in the Googlebomb, provide the mechanism, in conspiracy, to facilitate Barrett’s position on Google, and the other search engines.
The way I see it – the two things are related and caused by the same situation – an organized conspiracy, by a subversive group, designed to perpetrate Fraud, and cause as much harm to the American public as possible.
This is an opportunity…
What we have here is a unique situation. Not often is a complete conspiracy so quickly uncovered as has happened here in this case. Usually conspirators keep their mouths shut and try to pretend that there is no conspiracy. These people, in the their unbridled arrogance, openly activated the conspiracy network, specifically, and with gusto, to damage, intimidate, and completely destroy, with further defamation, using Intentional Malice, not only Doctor’s Data, but the attorney firm representing them.
What did Barrett’s network do? They openly Googlebombed. They took over the first three to four pages of Google and the other search engines so that anyone, including the media, police investigators, and the general public would get the false impression that Doctor’s Data and the doctors they served were criminals. That action was, of course, not only Intentional Malice but Fraud, and a conspiracy to defraud.
How could they be this arrogant?
Barrett, and his network, are, complete scofflaws in that they think that laws, especially those derived from the Judeo/Christian Ethic, do not apply to them since they, by their own definition, being “Skeptics, and Secular Humanists,” are so superior to the rest of us.
Don’t laugh here. These people are serious. They have regional meetings to convince themselves, and others at the meetings, how superior they are. I will be explaining all this in an upcoming article called “Who the 2010/2011 Quackbusters are…”
In essence, there is, basically, little difference between what the “Skeptics” did in this case, and what a Los Angeles street gang does to anyone who reports their activities to the police.
However, I suspect Barrett’s attempt at fund raising has fallen flat. His support network’s idea of a sizable contribution would be 20 bucks. What I see is a house of cards…
For now, let’s review the situation surrounding a potential “Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
Keep in mind that I have instant access to some of the best legal minds in the US. And I don’t hesitate to call them. One of them suggested this:
(1) The use of a regular Preliminary Injunction strategy to force Barrett to take down his nonsense.
(2) The use of a “Gang Injunction” strategy to force all of Barrett’s minions to stop maliciously damaging Doctor’s Data and the patients and health professionals they serve.
“Gang injunction is a court-issued restraining order prohibiting gang members from participating in certain activities. It is based on the legal theory that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance that prevents non-gang members from enjoying peace in their communities.”
Click on the words “Gang Injunction” and read some interesting legal tactics. Think for a moment about the similarities between street gangs and Barrett’s support network.
My guess is that since a Second Amended Complaint was filed just as a document language cleanup, there will probably be a Third Amended Complaint adding on more Defendants and Counts.
And I don’t think a RICO Complaint too far off, either.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate