Things are about to get VERY, VERY bad for Stephen Barrett, his co-conspirators, minions, and supporters.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
The judge in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett case has come down hard, very hard, on Stephen Barrett and the other Defendants regarding their refusal to provide Discovery documents demanded by the Plaintiff Doctor’s Data’s attorneys.
The judge’s Order to Compel carries significant penalties, including the threat of arrest of Barrett, under the “Contempt of Court” rules, for failure to comply with the Order. And they, the Defendants, have only until September 12th, 2012 (four days from now), to clean up their act.
On August 27th, and 29th, 2012 attorneys for Doctor’s Data, Augustine, Kern and Levens, Ltd., filed two separate Motions to Compel, asking the Judge to force Stephen Barrett to comply with Discovery demands. The Motions separately complained that Barrett had been given one hundred twenty three (123) discovery demands, and to date, had only partially answered eleven (11) of them, claiming various ludicrous“privileges” for not answering one hundred and twelve (112) of them.
Motions to Compel are NOT common. Orders to Compel, by judges, are even less common. I’m going to show you the judge’s actual written Order just below. Although the wording seems simple, and it is, it is the equivalent of the judge taking Barrett by the throat, shaking him, and saying “You are about one inch away from jail, asshole…”
Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs motion to compel pertaining to privilege issues  is granted. Defendant is ordered to confirm by the end of today whether it has redacted any documents on the basis of a privilege claim. Any documents redacted on that basis must be identified on a privilege log to be provided to Plaintiff by 9/12/12. Defendant is directed to produce un-redacted versions of documents redacted on the basis of relevance to Plaintiff by 9/12/2012. With respect to documents withheld on the basis of a common interest privilege, the parties are granted leave to file submissions, by 9/12/12, addressing the application of that privilege to any documents withheld by Defendant on the basis of a common interest privilege claim. Plaintiffs motion to compel pertaining to financial documents  remains under advisement pending further consultation between the parties, as discussed in court. Status hearing set for 9/19/2012 at 9:00 a.m.
The judge’s Order in the “Privilege” issue is absolutely, without question, the worst thing that could EVER have happened to Barrett, his co-conspirators, minions, and supporters. For here, the judge has validated one hundred twenty (120) of the one hundred twenty three (123) discovery demands of the Plaintiff Doctor’s Data’s attorneys, and is looking CAREFULLY at the remaining three.
In this article we will only look at the first Motion. Part Two will deal with the other.
Why is this important?
Because Doctor’s Data’s document demands strike right into the heart of quackpot/skeptic land, and demands specific evidence of the conspiracy. In the Motion to Compel Pertaining to Privilege Issues, plus Exhibits, link I have provided below you will find, within the 122 pages, very startling information about Barrett’s activities with others.
Included are the “Motion” itself (8 pages), A “Responses of Defendant Stephen J. Barrett to Plaintiff’s Request for Production” (94 pages), and several Exhibit letters and emails between the attorneys attempting solution. All, very good reading.
It is the ninety four (94) page Barrett Response document which tells the whole story all by itself, for it has within it, not only the one hundred twenty three (123) questions that Doctor’s Data demanded answers to, but Barrett’s evasive responses to each question. Note that all but three of Barrett’s responses were rejected by the judge. And those three are under advisement. I am going to give you a tour.
When Barrett’s parrotts and minions read this report, and they all do because they certainly won’t find out what’s happening from Barrett, some of them are going to be on the edge of a coronary event – it’s that bad for them.
Barrett, using I presume, his legal knowledge gained from the mail order law course he took years ago, had said in his response that he was claiming several different kinds of “privilege” to refuse to provide documents. He claimed Attorney Client privilege, Work Product privilege, Joint Defense/Common Interest privilege, Doctor-Patient privilege (HIPPA), and Reporter privilege.
The judge didn’t see it that way. Near the bottom of this article I will show you what the court documents said – so you can laugh.
When you open the link – August 27th, 2012 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pertaining to Privilege Issues (122 pages) – you will see that it is a PDF file, and has a page numbering system. Pages one (1) through eight (8) are the Motion to Compel pages.
Starting on page nine (9), though one hundred one (101) is Barrett’s Response, and it is here we will find MEAT.
Let’s start on page twelve (12) where the questions and answers start. Note that the first three questions just ask Barrett what evidence he has to back up his statements about Doctor’s Data. It is question number four (4) which sent Barrett into a rage, with him, I’m sure, laying on the floor and kicking his feet. For question number four says:
According to the court documents (feel free to laugh here), Barrett insisted that “the inspection would occur in a secure, monitored, room with only counsel present, with no client permitted, with no retained expert permitted, and with no copying permitted.” Ask yourself “What the hell is Barrett afraid we will find out?”
Questions five (5) through twenty two (22) demand any and all communications between the Defendants and various government agencies. See sample below:
Question twenty three (23) demands all communications with any attorneys.
Questions twenty four (24) and twenty five (25) start to ask about Barrett’s relationships with Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill, Eli Lilly, Archer Daniels Midland, Dow Chemical, Merck, etc.
It is questions twenty nine (29) through thirty four (34) that start to get interesting. For it is here that the questions turn to the “who is paying you to do this crap, and where are you doing it?” scenario. Example:
Questions thirty five (35) through forty one (41) ask for the names, email and other addresses, copies of any correspondence, etc., of everyone who ever responded to any off Barrett’s articles about Doctor’s Data. (People who may have believed Barrett’s crap, and may have acted on it).
Question forty two (42) starts the inquiry about Barrett, and Baratz’s relationship with California attorney David Wilzig. Click on his name above for a reminder of who this is.
Question forty three (43) makes the same inquiry about every attorney Barrett lists on his so-called Attorney Advisory Council.
Question forty four (44) demands:
All Barrett victims.
And, Question forty five (45) demands:
Question forty six (46) through fifty four (54) ask for sources of income evidence.
Question fifty (55) though fifty seven (57) demand to see any documents Barrett relied on to back up his statements about Doctor’s Data.
Question fifty eight (58) through sixty five (65) ask for copies of everything written about Doctor’s Data by Barrett.
Question sixty six (66) through sixty nine (69) ask about fee agreements for himself or anyone he recommends in any cases he is involved in.
Questions seventy one (71) and seventy two (72) pertain to Barrett and any communications with anyone he may have talked into filing a claim against Doctor’s Data, or any Medical or Dental Professional that used Doctor’s Data.
Question seventy three (73) is a mystery. It says:
Question seventy four (74) through seventy six (76) pertain to contributions to Quackwatch and the NCAHF.
Question seventy seven (77) through eighty (80) ask, very pointedly, about Barrett’s relationship with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).
Question eighty one (81) through eighty five (85) ask about any “Experts” Barrett intends to call on his behalf at trial.
Questions eighty six (86) through ninety three (93) ask about how Quackwatch and the NCAHF actually work – who is involved, where does the money come from, who does what?
Question ninety four (94) is a bombshell. It says:
In other words Doctor’s Data is demanding to know, specifically, the names, and the contact information, of the human garbage that inhabits the so-called Health Fraud Discussion List. (smile here).
Questions ninety five (95) through ninety seven (97) demand further information about the activities of the Health Fraud Discussion List. See Question ninety six (6) as an example below:
Question ninety eight (98) is another bombshell. It says:
Why is this important? Because I believe this so-called “Consumer Health Digest” is an email newsletter of names gleaned from Federation of State Medical Board (FSMB) meeting attendees (government employees) who are propagandized to believe Barrett is a reliable source of health information. These are people, acting under false belief, who could start a prosecution for doctors using Doctor’s Data’ services.
Questions ninety nine (99) through one hundred one (101) ask simply: “Did you check with anyone, at any time, before you wrote those silly ass articles about doctor’s Data and those doctors that use their services?”
Question one hundred two (102) is another foray into finding about about Barrett’s relationship with Paul Kurtz the person who published all of Barrett’s crappy books.
Question one hundred three (103) is about Barrett’s relationship to those suing DDI.
Question one hundred four (104) and one hundred five (105) ARE BOTH bombshells. They say:
In short – they ask “What is your relationship with these so-called “skeptics.”
Question one hundred six (106) is a simple question about Barrett supposedly dissolving the Quackwatch, Inc. corporation.
Question one hundred seven (107) asks Barrett, very pointedly, about stuff removed from the Health Fraud Discussion List.
Question one hundred eight (108) asks for any and all communications between Barrett and anyone regarding Doctor’s Data.
Question one hundred nine (109) is another bombshell – it is a direct question about the so-called “skeptics” involvement with Barrett. It says:
So, what will it mean to the US health care system to “finish” Barrett and his minions? It will mean a lot. For Barrett’s people (and I will explain exactly who they are in the next article), although not particularly successful overall, have one important thing going for them – they control information flow about health care, right now, both on the internet search engines, and on Wikipedia.
The good thing for us is that they are, and were, so arrogant about it that after the Doctor’s Data case was filed they used their power to try to openly (they identified themselves) completely destroy Doctor’s Data – and their malicious activity in this operation is completely actionable. Every one of them can, and probably will be, added as a Defendant in the case in a future “Amended Complaint.”
Is that a good thing to add on new Defendants? Yes, it is – for two reasons. The first is that Doctor’s Data can wrap up Barrett’s network in one simple action. And the second is that several of the potential Defendants have some net worth that can be used to pay damages. Liz Ditz, for instance, the person who organized the “Googlebomb” has horses, and horse property, in a very expensive area of Northern California. The house next door to her, there, is currently for sale at a discount, for four million dollars. Orac the Nipple Ripper (David Gorski) apparently writes his blog from his desk at the Cancer Center (deep pockets) in Detroit where he works. And more.
Question one hundred ten (110) and one hundred eleven (111) ask, again, about communications with anyone suing Doctor’s Data.
Question one hundred twelve (112) asks more about Barrett’s relationships with the “skeptics:”
Question one hundred thirteen (113) asks for:
Question one hundred fourteen (114) asks for:
Question one hundred fifteen (115) asks for:
Question one hundred sixteen (116) asks for:
Here, Doctor’s Data is looking for co-conspirators. Elizabeth Woeckner is, I think, a nobody who runs so-called groups (one member only?) with high sounding names whose purpose seems to be to criticize her betters.
Question one hundred seventeen (117) asks for:
Question one hundred eighteen (118) asks for:
Question one hundred nineteen (119) asks for:
Question one hundred twenty (120) asks for:
Question one hundred twenty one (121) asks for:
Question one hundred twenty two (122) asks for:
Question one hundred twenty three (123) asks for:
Barrett’s spurious “privilege” arguments revealed…
Just below is one of the most recent letters sent from Doctor’s Data’s excellent attorney Jeff Levens to Michael K. Botts, Barrett’s lead attorney. In it Levens is giving Botts a legal lesson.
In part Two…
In part Two – August 29th, 2012 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pertaining to Financial Documents (31 pages). – I will explain the EVEN WORSE situation for Barrett and his weird friends.
Stay tuned. And smile.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate