Federal cases take forever to wend their way through the court system.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
This case, the Doctor’s Data v Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF was filed June 18th, 2010, and it still isn’t finished.
But the circumstances surrounding the case never cease to provide amusement for the North American Health Freedom Movement. It is VERY satisfying watching Stephen Barrett and his band of worthless toadies suffering one indignity after another in the case, as the Court slowly, inevitably, jams Barrett’s idea of who and what controls US health care up their combined rectal cavities – publicly.
Every machination by Barrett, and company, provided inside and outside the case has met with not only failure, but disaster. It’s like Barrett, and his cronies have been staked down in the parking lot of the Federal courthouse in Chicago, Illinois watching the steam roller coming down their aisle way. Behind the steam roller are the street sweepers prepared to sweep and vacuum up the remains and deposit them on Chicago’s trash heap where they belong.
Doctor’s Data filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
What’s a “Motion for Summary Judgment?”
In short, a Motion for Summary Judgment is a legal move made shortly after the close of the official discovery period basically saying that the opposition has no case to proceed with and it would be a waste of everyone’s time to continue, so, your honor, would you just rule in our favor and we’ll get on with the what’s left – like seizing the money awarded as damages, please.
it is a legal device used very often, and is just as often successful.
In addition, a Motion for Summary Judgment does NOT have to be filed on every aspect of the case. It can be filed any any partial element of the case, leaving the rest of the case to be adjudicated. And, that’s what was done here – a filing on just one of the Counts – the “Libel per se” element.
Libel per se? What’s that?
From the legal dictionary:
libel per se – n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for “general damages,” and not just specific losses.
As some of you will recall from earlier articles on this case there were a total of eleven original Counts in the case:
The case charges the Defendants with (1) Lanham Act Violations – Restraint of Trade, Deceptive Business Practices, and Trademark Dilution, (2) Trademark Dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act, (3) Violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, (4) Violations of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, (5) Business Libel Per Se, (6) Business Libel Per Quod, (7) Tortuous Interference with Existing and Potential Business Relationships, (8) Fraud or Intentional Misrepresentation, (9) Civil Conspiracy, (10) Corporate Officer and Board Member Personal Liability, (11) Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief.
A finding by the Court in favor of Doctor’s Data on this Motion for Summary Judgment for Count five (5), shown above, makes the rest of the case very easy – for the rest is just a means to determine how much damages will be paid by Barrett and his co-conspirators.
End of story. Sort of. The “mopping up” will be very expensive for Barrett and cronies.
Oh, wait…
De-licensed MD, Stephen Barrett, and his group of hateful, sleazy, co-defendants did file some Motions of their own.
Get ready for a laugh…
Their Motions were to get rid of Doctor’s Data’s Expert Witnesses. Uhmmmmm… And more, these fools made a separate Motion to “seal” their backup documents that, supposedly, prove their claims. I think, actually, they just didn’t want ME to print them here – and openly laugh at their efforts.
I am not going to reprint their sniveling here. It isn’t worth the reading. It is just the usual bombastic offering we are accustomed to getting from Barrett – the kind of thing that the Courts consistently reject from Barrett, et al, in virtually every case Barrett has ever been involved in. Every case.
Now, though, it gets better. Barrett has found an expert witness…
A snake charmer. I kid you not.
Doctor’s Data, Inc. (“DDI”), through its attorneys, respectfully moves this Court to bar testimony and opinions proffered by Defendants’ expert, Dr. Anne-Michelle Ruha, relating to matters of clinical laboratory standards and practice, including her opinions relating to DDI’s urine test results report and its allegedly misleading nature. In support, DDI submits the attached memorandum of law.
What did you expect?
Doctor’s Data’s Motion for Summary Judgment…
I am going to give you a link, in a moment, to read the entire Motion For Summary Judgment. It is as VERY good read. But, just below, is an introduction. There are parts that have been redacted from the document, but you’ll get the idea:
Click here to read the whole Motion for Summary Judgment.
Stay tuned…
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate