Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

It was three long weeks ago that Michael K. Botts, Esq. applied (Pro Hac Vice) to the Federal Court in Chicago to, supposedly, represent Stephen Barrett in the Doctor's Data v Barrett, Federal Court case.  On August 26th we saw that Botts had been rejected by the Court but was being re-applied by Barrett's local counsel, to the Court.

Well, guess what?

When you are required to meet deadlines "three weeks" is a lifetime.  In short, it looks like the Botts application may be going to be denied entirely - and that would not surprise me a bit.  More, the Court gave Barrett the thirty day extension he asked for - but time is a-wasting for September 30th is right around the corner.  Even more, I doubt that the Court would give Barrett any more extensions - no lead attorney or not.

Why would the Court deny Botts admission into the case?  Well, for a lot of reasons.  The Courts, especially the Federal Courts, actually want competent attorneys practicing in front of them.  It may be that the Federal Court's researchers have found that Botts just does not have what it takes.  We'll soon know.

So, it is possible that a "Judgment By Default" is right around the corner, perhaps as soon as the first week in October.

Courts are very careful about issuing a "Judgment By Default" in a case.  They do not do it easily.  They tend to give a Defendant some wriggle room.  In this case, it looks to me, that the Plaintiff, Doctor's Data, can easily show that they gave Barrett plenty of time to Respond.  Instead of the normal 21 days, Doctor's Data gave Barrett 60 days.  The Court, recently, gave Barrett another 30 days.  My guess is that that's going to be it.  If Barrett doesn't lawyer up and Respond by September 30th there is not going to be any more time allocated.  It will be Judgment time.

What to expect if Botts does get into the case...

There is one consistent style I have noticed in court cases involving quackbusters - especially Barrett.  It involves two tactics:  (1)  screeching rhetoric, with all kinds of wild-eyed accusations, often enough including accusations of a sexual nature (almost every quackbuster lawsuit against Biological Dentists accuses the practitioner of improper touching of the patient - even though they have NEVER won on any of those points).  (2)  voluminous filings, tons of manufactured paper with constant repetition using the theory that no judge is going to read all this crap.

I tried to get a copy of Bott's Herbert v American Quackery Association - 1987 Iowa Court case, but it is in underground storage, and would take too long.  But, as one of the Defendants tells me "As I remember, it seems to me that the original Complaint was four inches thick."

So, in effect, it might just be possible that the Chicago Federal Court did their own research, and the Judge may already have said "Nope, not in MY Court...  I'm not running a zoo"  If that's the case, Barrett has to find another lawyer - and damn quick.  He's running out of time.

There is a big problem if this case goes to a Judgment by Default right now...

The problem is that Barrett has a very low net worth, and the sale of even all of his property won't pay the damages claimed in even One Count named in the lawsuit.  Click here to read Barrett's information and you'll see what I mean.

I recommend that Doctor's Data add on some more Defendants first - I have a list of recommendations, some of which very clearly have "deep pockets."  I'll tell you about them, specifically, soon.

Stay tuned.