Botts and Barrett - Fumble Bumble Stumble Jumble...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Friday, August 27th, 2010

I check my Pacer Account every few days and yesterday found four new filings in the Doctor's Data v Barrett, Federal Court case.  After that I am even more convinced that the script writers for Saturday Night Live are designing Barrett's Defense.

The four documents, all presented by Stephen Barrett's three attorneys (actually two-and-a-half - I will explain) tell a story that will somewhat amuse you.  It certainly amused me.

One of the documents, this one filed by Michael K. Botts, Esq. is a plea to the Court for Reconsideration, with explanations, to be allowed to represent Barrett at all.  It seems the Chicago Court rejected Botts.  I will let you read this document shortly.

Another document brings in a second "local attorney" to represent Barrett - to try and save the day.

A third document is a Motion to Extend time to answer (no big surprise) filed by the newest "local attorney."

And, the fourth document is a Notice of Hearing on Motion to extend time sent to Doctor's Data legal firm.

What does all this mean?  Why should we laugh?

In short, Stephen Barrett, and his support network, spent all of their time (the sixty days they had to answer) on things other than preparing a Defense - and I will tell you WHAT they were doing, instead of preparing, just below. 

They waited until the last minute to bring in a "lead attorney" candidate (Botts).  Now they are in very big trouble for they have NO "lead attorney" yet, approved by the Court.  Court rules across the US require that if an attorney is not admitted to the Bar in that jurisdiction they must apply to that Court (Pro Hac Vice) and be approved, and bring in local counsel to assist.  Applications are not automatically approved.

Botts application was rejected, and he is reapplying.  But, and this is a very big "but," Barrett waited until the last minute so he has run out of time - literally, to answer.  Botts, understand, is not allowed to do anything for Barrett in this Court until he has been accepted.  So, Barrett had to hire another local attorney to do all the proper filings just to stave off Doctor's Data from simply filing for a Default Judgment.  Below is a quote from Bott's filing, where he attempts to explain why he is no longer allowed to practice law in SIX States...

But it gets better. 

It is important to note that all of these attorneys are representing "Stephen J. Barrett MD."  None of them have been retained to represent Defendants "Quackwatch, Inc." or the "National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF)."  No attorneys have shown up to represent either of the other two Defendants.  They each are now, or soon will be, the target for a Motion for Default Judgment, which, in street language means "You lost - pay me right now."

Here is the Humor - and Barrett/Bott's Dilemma...

There are some significant legal problems here.  I will list them.

(1)  Note that Botts is not writing these legal papers.  Why?  He is not in the case - and it has begun.  The Court has not let him in, and may not.

(2)  In the "Motion for Extension of Time", note that Wasserman has scheduled a hearing for August 31st, 2010 - the day AFTER the deadline.  Oops!  That is called Default.  They simply ran out if time and missed the deadline. 

(3)  In the "Motion for Extension of Time," note that attorney /Wasserman is attempting, without legal right, to represent the NCAHF, Inc., and Quackwatch, Inc..   Quackwatch and NCAHF are separate legal entities, and Wasserman, and no other attorney, is actually there to represent them.  Wasserman is trying to get those two other Defendants an Extension when he does not even represent them.  Barrett is trying to get them out of the case by a trick here.

(4)  Note in the "Motion for Extension of Time" that Wasserman says about Botts "a pro hac vice application for Mr. Botts is being prepared for filing this week..."   In street language what I think Wasserman is saying is "Your honor, Botts screwed up the original application, and seems to have no idea how to fix it.  My firm brought me in yesterday to show this consummate idiot how to actually file this simple application form correctly.  If I can get this dolt to provide me with the right info I should be able to get this done this week."

(5)  In the "Motion for Extension of Time," Wasserman says "Defendant's counsel are currently investigating the allegations of the Amended Complaint and need time to prepare Defendant's answers or otherwise plead to the amended Complaint." The question is, of course, is "what was Barrett doing during those sixty days he had, instead of getting an answer to the lawsuit prepared?"  We'll be examining that in the next section of this article.

I

What WAS Barrett doing during those sixty days he had, instead of preparing an answer to the lawsuit?

And now we are down to the nitty-gritty...

Instead of lawyering up and Responding, Barrett, and his minions, went all out to completely destroy Doctor's Data during that period. 

They increased the defamatory attack fifty-fold, virtually dominating the internet.

In one of my next articles I'll give you the details of who the minions are, and what they specifically did. But for now let me reiterate what I said in one of my earlier articles:

(3)  There are two parts to the internet component of the quackwatch, etc., operation:  (a)  the actual misinformation articles, but more importantly (b)  The SEO component which floats the scum to the top of the septic tank.  Barrett has no training in SEO.  It is being done by a professional.  Professionals get paid a lot of money.  So, who's paying?

I had two separate analysis done, by SEO experts, of how Stephen Barrett, and the pseudoskeptics float to the top of the search engines. It is not by accident.  It is planned and executed.  How they do it makes them co-conspirators.  Co-conspiracy is actionable.

This lawsuit, Doctor's Data v Barrett, is just starting to get interesting.

My prediction?  Start thinking "Second Amended Complaint" with quite a few new Defendants.

Stay tuned. 

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate