Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
There has been a new court document filed this last June 22, 2011, in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett, et al, case. This one, totally disjointed, unsigned by any of Barrett’s attorneys, makes me wonder.
Supposedly, this document was an answer to a filing by Doctor’s Data, pointing out that there was a new case, just decided, since the Doctor’s Data v Barrett, et al filing, that has some bearing on the legal arguments in the pending “Motion to Dismiss” decision.
But, you certainly can’t tell that from the so-called “Response.”
Disjointed as it was, leaping from jagged thought to jagged thought, it gave me the impression that Barrett had found some homeless person, who used to be a lawyer before he/she burned out their brain on street drugs, handed them their fourth jug of wine, and received, in return, this document.
However, if you read it carefully, there are some areas which seem to give a message. The clearest message is Barrett’s whimpering, weeping, keening despondency – beseeching the court, as it were, to allow the smallest leaning toward the ludicrous idea that he was “assisting government” in his attack on Doctor’s Data, a million Autistic children and their families, and science in general.
No where in this document, perhaps for the first time in Barrett’s Defense strategy, is the demand that the court declare him the “Czar/God of US Health Care.” So, progress is being made.
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.”
Barrett has major problems…
If Barrett loses on his “Motion to Dismiss” action – and he will – a whole host of problems will come his way.
(1) Barrett, during “Discovery,” is going to have to identify who is involved in catapulting his articles to the first page of search engines. Those people, once identified, will, I suspect, be added on to the lawsuit – and they should be.
(2) Barrett, during “Discovery,” is going to have to identify who is paying his legal fees – for, for certain, Barrett cannot afford this case. His entire net worth couldn’t pay his legal bills. I suspect that the answers to questions one and two might well be the same.
(3) I suspect that after questions one and two, above, get answered, Count number nine “Civil Conspiracy,” listed above, will take on a whole new meaning.
(4) Barrett does not testify well, neither on direct nor on cross-examination. Juries do not like him. Also, he does terribly in Depositions. Doctor’s Data will Depose Barrett on video tape. That tape will play really well, for years, on the internet.
(5) I have good reason to believe that Barrett does not now, nor has not, for some time, written, nor posted ANY of the articles on any of his websites. Think about what I just said…
In closing…
I suspect that once Barrett’s “Motion to Dismiss” is denied, and it will be, that Doctor’s Data will be approached with a “Confidential Settlement Offer” that, for the CASH part, will include EIGHT figures.
Why? Because Barrett’s masters and handlers need to hide, and that type of settlement would be the only way to keep the apparatus running – until the next lawsuit, that is.
Stay tuned.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate