Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

I enjoy writing about the Doctor's Data v Barrett case.  Every time I turn around and look to see what's happening another guffaw exits my system, for once more, seemingly out of nowhere sometimes, comes one more patent example that there is, in fact, a divine justice in the world.

For those of you who don't know, Stephen Barrett and his weenie minions, are, for the most part (among other things) Secular Humanists, which, in simple translation, means that they do not believe in a God or religion, nor, to me, do they grasp or embrace the moral and ethical codex that, in essence, in 1776, established the very grounds for the social experiment known as "The United States of America."  They, the Secular Humanists, believe that THEY are Gods unto themselves.  None of them have a clue as to the constraints put on the rest of us by our adherence to the Judeo/Christian Ethic, and how that code applies in ways we treat each other.

Ok, OK...  I promised to make my next article about who the 2010/2011 quackbusters really are, and this little piece isn't actually doing that.  But, think of it as an introduction to where we are going.  That paragraph above, about the Secular Humanist component of the quackbuster operation, sets the stage, as it were, for what's coming.

Divine justice in the world?  Oh yeah.  This case, and all of its development, is clear evidence that there is in fact, a God, and that he/she has a sense of humor.

Sense of humor?  Yup.  Why?  Because Stephen Barrett, without question, is getting the attorney he deserves in Michael K. Botts, Esq.  The Illinois court, on September 28th, one month after his application, finally approved Botts as Barrett's lead attorney.  Yippee!

Why am I happy about this?  Well, many of you know that, sometimes, I don't tell the full story, leaving my readers waiting for the next article, or the next after that, to see what evolved.  It's a writer's trick - kind of like, when I was a kid going to the Saturday Matinee movie house, with my fifty cents to spend, there was always what was called a "cliffhanger," where, for instance, the Cisco Kid would, literally, be hanging over the edge of a cliff, and the movie would end, making you come back next Saturday to see what happened.

What did  I leave out about Botts?  I mean, I was pretty explicit about Bott's activities regarding the continuous thrashing he took, and caused his client Victor Herbert to take, in the celebrated Herbert v American Quack Association.  I mean, what kind of blithering idiot would file a case against 25 Defendants in a jurisdiction where 22 of them were dismissed from the case because, simply, and obvious to the Court, they were never within that Court's jurisdiction?  More, two others were Dismissed in a Mistrial.

So, what DID I leave out?  And, why did I leave it out?

The quackbusters all read my articles.  You should see the anger they exhibit about what I have to say.  In short, they want me OFF the internet immediately.  They complain everywhere they can. 

I, of course, smile at this.

Understand that I didn't want "the minions" to pressure Barrett into NOT using Botts. Generally speaking Barrett's minions are not the brightest people in the world.  They almost NEVER do their own research.  They claim, to my amusement, to be science-based, and critical thinkers (snort).  Frankly, I doubt if any one of them could define the term "scientific method."   I have found that I, Tim Bolen, with a few simple tricks, can lead them around just as easily as Barrett does.  The easiest trick is a form of reverse psychology.  I just give them enough information so that they vehemently disagree with me - not enough to convince them of something.  They have the attention span of a box of rat puppies.

Why this?  To me, Botts is about as good an attorney for the quackbusters as bobbie baratz is as an Expert Witness for them.  When attorneys call me because bobbie has shown up as an Expert in a case against their client I calmly explain why the attorney should be GLAD bobbie baratz is there - and how to use that situation.  Bobbie loses cases. And, Botts loses cases - dramatically, and expensively.  And, that's what we want.

In the Herbert v American Quack Association case the Health Freedom people toyed with Botts and Herbert, dragging Botts around the country, from one venue to another, keeping him exhausted, and keeping Herbert begging for money to try to keep going.

So, I only told my readers, including the minions, about the first case handled by Botts for Herbert, "Herbert v American Quack Association," and not the second case "Victor Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences" - which, in effect, was far more devastating to Herbert than the first.  The second case, apparently, went all the way to the US Supreme Court - losing, losing, losing, losing, losing, every step of the way.

Herbert, apparently, even while collecting money from the quackbuster minions of the time, primarily funded this litigation.

It is no wonder that when Herbert's ten-year attack against the Health Freedom Movement failed he only had $6,000 to his name - and had to give half of that to one of the Defendants.  And, it was apparent, he had exhausted quackbuster contributions in humiliatingly losing battles.

Yup, Botts is the attorney Barrett deserves...  He's perfect.  It will be a race, I think, between Botts and Doctor's Data to see who impoverishes Barrett, and his minions, first.

Stay tuned. 

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate