Doctor’s Data Responds to Barrett Legal “Whimpering”…

Another court document has been filed, this time by the Plaintiff, in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett, et al, case. 

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

It’s intent was to answer the earlier, to me nearly indecipherable, document filed by the Defense (Stephen Barrett) a few weeks ago.

The legal arguments, at this point, are over the “Motion to Dismiss” filed by Stephen Barrett’s legal team.  Barrett, it appears, is claiming that he is IMMUNE to lawsuits because, in his own words, he is “Assisting Government.” (don’t laugh – he is dead serious). 

More, it is clear, that Barrett was originally demanding that the US Federal court formally declare him to be the “Czar/God of US health care.” (envision the word MEGALOMANIA here – like in sky-writing).
But, the last few documents filed by Barrett, it appears to me, have lost their demanding, condescending tone.  They have settled into a whine – sort of an effort to snivel, whimper, bleat, blubber, and mewl, hoping, as it were, to beseech the court for mercy – so he, Barrett, can live another day, legally – avoiding, what for him, would be the process of self-extinction – “Discovery.”   That “Discovery” would be a course of action where Barrett would have to reveal the names and activities of his masters and co-conspirators.

What the new document says…

We are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the case.  The very first sentence says: “It is in the final section of the Defendants’ supplemental brief that they complete their journey from speciousness to disingenuousness to outright misrepresentation.”

Let’s analyze what’s going on here by looking carefully at what Doctor’s Data is saying about Barrett and his legal team’s approach by looking at some legal definitions:

speciousness – an appearance of truth that is false or deceptive; seeming plausibility; “the speciousness of his argument”

disingenuous – adjective dishonest, cunning, sly, designing, wily, insidious,feigned, artful, two-faced, shifty, deceitful, insincere, duplicitous, underhanded,guileful

misrepresentation – Definition: falsehood.  Synonyms: adulteration, coloring, distortion, exaggeration, fabrication, false light, falsification, lie, misstatement,mutilation, not a true picture, slant, story*, stretch, tall story, twist, untruth.

What’s happening here is that Doctor’s Data is, in essence, saying that Barrett’s legal approach in this case is identical to his website approach to health care:“their journey from speciousness to disingenuousness to outright misrepresentation.”

And, it gets better…

Then Doctor’s Data says:  “Finally, Defendants insist their speech “was addressed to matters of public concern in health and safety issues….”  Plaintiffs are not trying to encroach on Defendants’ right to freedom of expression.  On the contrary.  It is they who are challenging the Plaintiff’s right to seek redress in the court for Plaintiff’s grievances.  This anti-SLAPP business has not arisen because Plaintiff has tried to curtail Defendants’ constitutional liberties, but because they are seeking conditional immunity for their lies.  They insist that “in this case” their speech was addressed to “petitions to government agencies for actions in protection of public health.  However, they did no such thing “in this case.””

I love this part…

Stephen Barrett, as we all know, ran an attack against Doctor’s Data, openly, in my mind, attempting to completely destroy Doctor’s Data laboratory and any health practitioner that used their services.  The center of Barrett’s attack was his insistence that Doctor’s Data and the health practitioners that used it were“conspiring to commit fraud, and other crimes,” using Doctor’s Data’s provoked heavy metals test.  Accusing someone, openly and publicly, of a crime is something you better be prepared to defend in court – because it is always “Libel Per Se,” meaning:

“Libel Per Se” – noun. 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.”

The proper way, in our society, to report a crime, or your suspicion of a crime, is to approach the appropriate police agency, privately, and lay out your legitimate concerns.  They will investigate and make the appropriate determination.  Citizens are protected from retaliation should their concerns turn out to have no merit.

What Barrett is saying, with his lawsuit “Motion to Dismiss,” is that he, Stephen Barrett, can say anything he wants about anybody he wants, libelous or not, on any occasion, providing no proof of anything, for any reason, because  he, Stephen Barrett, the “Czar/God of US Health Care,” is immune to lawsuits because he, Stephen Barrett, is “Assisting Government.”

Well, I’m glad we got that straightened out (sarcasm intended).

But, what Barrett, and his minions did, was to write several articles about Doctor’s Data, conspire to catapult those articles to the first page of the search engines, use those articles as a basis for Complaint in several lawsuits,  and Medical Board Complaints, and more.

So, what was the basis for expertise in the series of articles about Doctor’s Data – why it was Stephen Barrett himself, the man who has not been licensed to practice medicine in any State since 1993, and who has been formally declared by the US court system to be “biased, and unworthy of credibility.”

Yup – no wonder Barrett is terrified of “Discovery.”

Here is the important part of the actual document…

For sure, read the very last paragraph, where it starts: “In its supplemental brief, Plaintiff relies on three points…”  That will give you the big picture of what’s really going on here, with this case.


To refresh your memory:

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.”

“The lawsuit seeks $5,000,000 in damages and an additional $15,000,000 in punitive damages from the Defendants, temporary and permanent injunctions preventing re-occurrence, plus whatever else the Court deems suitable.

Here, is a copy of the actual lawsuit with the Exhibits:  A, B, C, D, E, F, G.  Happy reading.”

Stay tuned.

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate