Get your sense of humor out, perhaps. Perhaps not.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
As I pointed out in my last article “Part One – The Privilege Removal” Doctor’s Data had filed TWO SEPARATE Motions to Compel in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett case, asking the judge to issue a court Order forcing Barrett and the others to comply with Discovery demands.
The judge quickly, and with gusto, issued his first Order, making it very clear that he wanted Barrett and his legal team to quit screwing around and start complying with simple court procedures – or else.
I’m going to show the Order to you once again. But, today, we will be concerned with only the last two sentences regarding “financial documents:”
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 “financial documents” Motion to Compel is, in its way, of equal importance as the first Motion regarding Barrett’s false claims of “privilege” – refusing to provide documents. For, like certain specific parts of the first Motion, the information demand here is about “the conspiracy.” In these Discovery demands Doctor’s Data wants to see where Barrett’ and the other Defendant’s money is coming from.
In the first Motion, among other things, they were looking for further evidence of activities, patterns, and co-conspirators. In the second Motion they they want to identify Barrett’s Paymasters.
They want to see: (1) Barrett and the other Defendant’s tax returns, (2) All names and amount of contributions, including to Legal Defense Funds, to any of the Defendants, (3) income from website activity.
Why do they want this? For several reasons. The primary reason is that there is a twenty million dollar (or more) claim on the table – and, frankly, Barrett, and the other Defendants, have absolutely NO DEFENSE. They did it.
They even bragged about it.
They even tried, after the lawsuit was filed, to quickly destroy Doctor’s Data financially, removing their ability to sue Barrett and the other Defendants, by designing and executing a “Googlebomb,” to falsely, and maliciously, make it appear to users of internet search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Bing that Doctor’s Data was reviled by the scientific and medical community. You can read the details of that incident here.
That didn’t work. And now it’s time to pay the piper.
The Amended Complaint process…
Doctor’s Data has made it very clear all along, in easily accessible court documents, that they would be using the Discovery Process to gather evidence, not just for trial, but to provide the basis for adding on both additional Defendants, and new charges. The way to do that is to petition the court asking to Amend the Complaint.
Let’s, from the information provided in the legal documents, take a guess about who it is, specifically, that Doctor’s Data is thinking of adding on as new Defendants. The two most obvious candidates are bobbie baratz (Robert Baratz MD, DDS, PhD) and California attorney David Wilzig. They both, after all, are directly involved in organizing, and executing, lawsuits and State licensing Board complaints, with bobbie baratz as the case consultant or the so-called “expert witness” against Doctor’s Data and those doctors that use their services.
The second group of possible new Defendants would be from the “skeptics” organization. There are several candidates starting with David Gorski MD (Orac the Nipple Ripper). He, and another possible candidate, Liz Ditz, primarily organized the malicious “Googlebomb” against Doctor’s Data. And, there is, of course, more.
What new claim could be added on? My target would be RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization). I have described this situation before – here. Why would RICO be a good move? Because of sections (a, b, and c) shown below – especially note the three-fold damages provisions of section (c):
“Sec. 1964. RICO Civil remedies
(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.
(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,”
Is RICO easy? No, its not. It was overused in the past and the courts want to see up front evidence of the necessary RICO points. For sure they would want a clear showing of the “predicated acts (criminal activity).”
So, let’s talk about the three financial things Doctor’s Data wants to see…
First let’s talk about the possible reasons that Stephen Barrett, and his co-conspirators, minions, and supporters, would have to take the position, over Barrett’s Tax returns, described below, with an excerpt from the court documents:
“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.”
I mean, why such a violent reaction to a simple, and very reasonable, inquiry?
Hold that thought for a moment.
It gets better…
There are THREE financial things Doctor’s Data demanded from Barrett, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and Quackwatch Inc. Their tax returns are just one thing. Although Barrett’s PERSONAL tax returns will undoubtedly, tell us a lot.
You can read the whole Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pertaining to Financial Documents (31 pages) here.
To me the other two demands are equally, if not MORE, important. Read this important excerpt from the Motion to Compel.
Pay VERY close attention to the last two lines of the paragraph above, where it says – “or to pay for any of the co-defendants’ legal defense costs in this or any other legal matters.”
Where IS Barrett getting legal defense money? He claimed, in his legal filings, that he was only getting $250 per month from the NCAHF. He’s already received, I’d guess, over $700,000 in legal work. Who’s paying for it?
Ask the very same questions about the NCAHF.
My guess is that the donor list will make it very clear who Barrett’s Paymasters are.
More from the Motion:
This should be very revealing also.
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.
One of those Motion issues has already been decided. The other comes up for review September 19th, 2012.
These demands for information, coupled with the demands for their email lists, and members of the Health Fraud Discussion Group, will paint EXACTLY the picture we want to see. And the phrase “want to see” rhymes with the word “conspiracy.”
Stay tuned. And smile.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate