Both times Barrett squawked like a buzzard.
One of those times he sued the people who had named him in that incident – only to settle the case moments, so to speak, before I was scheduled to testify against him.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Keep in mind, too, that Barrett sued me, making the case last almost ten years, without ever going to Court. To me, Barrett’s reasons for delay were obvious – he knew, because my attorney Carlos Negrete, and I, made it very clear that as soon as the case began to move forward, our first thrust would be an immediate demand for Barrett’s psychiatric evaluation – at the hands of a Board Certified Psychiatrist of our choice. And then there was the second move, and the third, and the fourth…
Right now – Stephen Barrett is trying to make some desperate legal moves, and I am about to explain why…
Barrett, I always believed, was using that lawsuit to do two things: (1) try to shut me up, and (2) try to convince his minions that he was not actually afraid of me, and had everything under control. Neither worked, for all the lawsuit did was to get me to focus on the quackbuster operation, and begin to expose it, and disassemble it.
I, on the other hand, wanted to use that lawsuit’s Discovery process, to accumulate details to use against Barrett, at al, in other actions – like in legal actions here and there, and of course, public disclosure.
But let’s get to the point.
Barrett, et al, in the existing Doctor’s Data v Barrett, Federal Court case have indicated that they want to do, among other, two things: (1) eliminate two Defendants – Quackwatch, Inc, and the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and (2) get rid of some of the the charges to, as they say, “streamline the litigation.”
So, what’s that all about? Well, simple. If Barrett can get the two other Defendants (Quackwatch, Inc and the NCAHF) CURRENTLY listed in the Complaint dropped, then he can get the Count that scares him the most – Count Number Nine (Civil Conspiracy) removed. The logic – no other Defendants to conspire with – no conspiracy.
Why? Because Count Number Nine is the meat of the whole issue – for Barrett is merely the quackbuster’s codpiece. I don’t think Barrett even edits those articles, and he certainly does not float them to the top of the search engines.
Count Number Nine is the most dangerous threat the quackbusters have ever had, for, although, it is not technically, by 2010 quackbuster standards, 100% correct, it can be easily, and readily, modified in an amended complaint.
And, it should be. I could, on a few hours notice, provide Doctor’s Data with a good sized list of names that should be added to the lawsuit, along with the evidence of the reason to add them. That, with a report from an SEO expert attached, could shove the 2010 quackbuster operation up against the wall with a “blindfold, no blindfold,” choice to make.
Is this really that important? Yes, it is. Because a “Civil Conspiracy” Count is just one legal step below a “Civil RICO” Count. And a “Civil RICO” Count is just a hair’s breadth away from the US Attorney’s office stepping in and changing that “Civil RICO” into “Criminal RICO,” with shackles and handcuffs in evidence.
Here is Count Nine:
The absolute beauty of what happened, so far, in this Doctor’s Data v Barrett, Federal Court case is the sheer, unadulterated quackbuster arrogance of INCREASING the attack on Doctor’s Data once the case was filed, attempting to destroy their company completely with a organized “Googlebomb”insuring that their totally libelous version of Doctor’s Data, and their version alone, dominated the internet search engines.
The filing of Count Nine, I think, was brilliant. For it opened the door to the “conspiracy” idea. RICO is too hard to file up front, for it was overused in the past, and the Courts tend to force the Plaintiff to prove their case up front. But you can feed and water a “conspiracy” count, and watch it grow.
So, why is “RICO” so scary? Because the penalties inflicted on the Defendant are devastating, as shown below:
“Sec. 1964. 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,”
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate