Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Where we left off in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett Federal Court case saga was the point where Doctor’s Data had asked for a formal Protective Order to keep it’s Expert Witnesses from being attacked by Barrett, and his minions. I had written two different articles on that subject:
But something far worse has happened to Barrett, and company. You are about to read about it.
Barrett’s network, as we know, is made up of the aging “quackbuster” operation and of more concern, the “angry homosexual” skeptic operation, trained, at various locations, to control information flow, and spew hatred, on the internet. We only have to look at the activities of the Australian Skeptics where they gave their highest annual award to their operative who called Meryl Dorey, of the Australian Vaccination Network’s home at 3:00 AM threatening her teenage children with “Death by Fire” for Dorey’s activities in the vaccine argument. Dorey was also threatened with rape and mutilation.
You can read about those “rape, mutilation and death threats against Meryl Dorey,” by clicking on the blue words.
And, in the early days of this case, the “skeptic” lowlifes tried their very best to destroy Doctor’s Data’s business with an organized “Googlebomb.” I wrote about that in an article called “Quackpots in a Tizzy Over Barrett Getting Sued… 7/9/10.”
What we have here is a direct conflict of two diametrically opposed life philosophies. It is truly, without doubt, the classic battle between good and evil.
“Good” in this instance, is represented by what’s called “The Judeo/Christian Ethic.” “Evil,” I think. can be best expressed by showing one other important facet of the ” skeptic‘s” campaign against Meryl Dorey and the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) – what another Australian skeptic, named Dan Buzzard tried to do with his “goatsie” campaign, sending images to Meryl Dorey’s home. See below:
Be careful – because opening the “Goatsie” link below will likely offend you…
“Goatsie” ” apparently, is a “skeptic” promotional banner, an advertisement for the reality of “skeptic” meetings, in this case used to offend, and sicken, Meryl Dorey, and her family members by inflicting Buzzard’s lifestyle on Dorey’s family. There was, to my mind, an inherent threat in this campaign.
Buzzard, himself, sent me an email demanding that I write about the fact that the Judge in Australia refused to issue the AVO, the Australian equivalent of a “Restraining Order” against him for his activities – probably because the Judge didn’t see a direct threat of violence. I offered to write a follow-up article if Buzzard would just answer a few background questions – but Buzzard refused. Here were the questions:
I am preparing, as you requested, an article on you.
Below are additional sets of questions I have about you, and your activities in the SAVN.
In addition to my first set, comprised of the following:
(1) “a current photo of yourself, your home address, your work address, your employer’s name, your immediate supervisor at work’s name,” I would like a photo of each of your vehicles, including the license plate numbers and a brief description of where you park them both at home and at work.
(2) I want to know who paid your legal fees regarding the AVO.
(3) I want to know where, and when, specifically, SAVN meetings are held, who usually attends them (specific names).
(4) I want to know who funds the SAVN.
(5) I want to know how many members of the SAVN control group are male homosexual? What are their average ages? How many are AIDS infected?
(6) I want to know about your general plan for the SAVN’s attack on Meryl Dorey and the AVN. Are you planning more threats of death, violence, rape, mutilation?
(7) What did you mean when you used the word “clients” in a recent message on the misc..health.alternative discussion group.
I’ll be back with more.
Dan Buzzard refused to answer. I can’t understand why, can you? (sarcasm intended).
But, let’s go over what recently happened in Court…
In one of my earlier articles I pointed out that, although Doctor’s Data had brought in VERY GOOD Expert Witnesses, Barrett and the other Defendants are bringing NONE.
For whatever reason, but probably because they just could not find anyone to testify to their nonsense, Stephen Barrett and bobbie baratz are going to testify in their own defense – smile here.
So, naturally, Doctor’s Data’s legal team, in a related case, after sharpening their teeth, so to speak, dragged little bobbie into a Deposition telling him, ahead of time, to “bring with you any, and all documents you relied on to make certain statements.” bobbie baratz had, already, provided the attorneys with a mound of paperwork he claimed were those documents.
Of course, bobbie claims “no one told me to bring those copies with me.” So, of course, the attorneys said “that’s OK, we’ve got a copy right here…”
Then it REALLY got interesting…
Why? The attorneys began to demand that bobbie go into that data pile and drag out the documents that back up his claims, one-at-a-time. For your amusement – from the Court filing:
- On August 1, 2012, Doctor’s Data filed a motion for summary judgment in the Coman case. Mr. Wilzig’s response to the motion for summary judgment was accompanied by an affidavit authored by Dr. Baratz, the former director of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), Codefendant in the instant case.
On October 22, 2012, Hon. William E. Gomolinski, the presiding judge in Coman, granted Dr. Rossignol’s motion to depose Dr. Baratz with respect to his affidavit.
Because Dr. Baratz’s affidavit was replete with claims attributed to the record without any citations, as well as facts and opinions drawn from no identifiable sources, Dr. Rossignol requested production in advance of the deposition of all the authorities on which the affiant had relied. When the information was not forthcoming, Dr. Rossignol filed a motion to compel which was granted to the extent detailed in an order entered December 3, 2012.
- Following entry of the order, Mr. Wilzig’s local attorney, John Stefani, delivered Dr. Baratz’s amended affidavit to the codefendants, consisting of 26 paragraphs on 22 pages with no footnotes or end notes; plus 1,107 pages of articles in an e-mail “download” without a single reference to the amended affidavit. In this “download” were approximately 393 pages pertaining to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), which certifies medical laboratories under the auspices of
Medicaid and Medicare.
- A few days before the deposition, Mr. Wilzig wrote all attorneys to announce that he would not bring copies of this “download” for everyone, and that each attorney should bring her or his own copy. As it turned out, Mr. Levens, representing Dr. Rossignol, was
the only attorney who brought the pages with him to Boston for the deposition. No other attorney did so: not co-defense counsel, not Mr. Wilzig, and not even Dr. Baratz, the affiant/deponent. Mr. Levens’ assistant accidentally overlooked printing one item from
Mr. Stefani’s “download”. Thus, Mr. Levens only brought 1,011 of the 1,107 pages to Boston. These 1,011 pages are hereinafter referred to as “the Stack.”
- On January 3, 2013, attorneys for Doctor’s Data, Dr. Rossignol, and Dr. Usman deposed Dr. Baratz, who referred to the articles he had provided and deposition transcripts he had mentioned as authority for his responses, but could not point to any specific document or authority because, conveniently, he had brought nothing with him.
At one point during the deposition, the lead defense attorney, representing Doctor’s Data, asked a question and Dr. Baratz referred to the Stack (see ¶ 8 above), which he did not have with him, whereupon Mr. Levens produced his copy of the Stack and challenged Dr. Baratz to locate his authority for his claim. Dr. Baratz began looking through the Stack page by page, painstakingly slowly. He never found whatever it was that he was looking for, but claimed there were some pages which he had never seen before.
11. Mr. Wilzig demanded that the pages be identified and all defense counsel agreed. For the remainder of the day, however, Dr. Baratz and Mr. Wilzig avoided doing so, first promising to do so at the lunch break, then promising to do so at the conclusion of the
deposition, but ultimately departing without ever identifying the pages in question. Subsequent to the deposition, Mr. Wilzig claimed he meant the entire Stack should be marked as an exhibit, but (a) he never said this during the deposition; (b) the entire Stack
is 1,011 of the 1,107 pages in his own “download” to all of the defense attorneys; (c) none of the co-defense attorneys understood this to have been his intention; and (d) doing so still would not have identified the pages Dr. Baratz denied having seen before that day.
The Judge in this related case, with no hesitation, granted Doctor’s Data a “Summary Judgement,” in Doctor’s Data’s favor.
The purpose of the recent filing was to be able to use all of this related case documents, and filings, in this federal case. In short, Doctor’s Data’s attorneys are saying “Your Honor, the Defendant’s chief witness, Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD (bobbie baratz) has ALREADY testified on the points of this case, and he failed to produce any evidence of his, and his associate Stephen Barrett’s, preposterous claims against Doctor’s Data… We want to be able to use this evidence in this case…”
Seems reasonable to me…
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate
– See more at: https://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor’s-Data-v-Barrett/The%20End%20is%20Nigh….htm#sthash.aVTTdjSu.dpuf