Friday, July 2nd, 2010

I've got a copy of the Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit attached to this article.  Be careful when you handle it - it's HOT...

I was kind of mad at Darryl Hickok, the head of Doctor's Data laboratory a few months ago, for not walking out and legally punching sleazebag Stephen Barrett, and his minions, in the face over their obvious intent to destroy Doctor's Data, and hence, a whole host of great US Doctors, with their activities. 

For, as I constantly point out to people, there is only one way to deal with Barrett and his slimy ilk - you have to, so to speak, slap them, and whack them, and kick them, and stomp them, yank their pants down and paddle them publicly - every time.  It is the only thing that works.

But then Doctor's Data, on June 18th, 2010 came out with a forty-one page Federal Lawsuit against Barrett, et al, which, in war terms, makes me say, quoting the famous line from one of my favorite movies of all time "Apocalypse Now",  "I love the smell of napalm in the morning..."

War is something that inevitably happens to humanity.  There are a lot of reasons why it occurs, not the least of which is oppression. In war, when you have to do it, you must win - and do so in a way that discourages, for a reasonable amount of time, the enemy from doing to you whatever it was that made you so angry in the first place.  One of those ways is to give the enemy a strong message, delivered in a way that will cause them to re-think the error of their ways. 

For instance, in World War II, the allies decided to bomb the German historic showplace city of Dresden into rubble, to make a point.  Then, the Americans nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a different point.  The enemy got the message.

In a sense, a strong sense, Doctor's Data just set up to do that to Stephen Barrett, and his band of rotten scum.  The action was not so much the filing of the lawsuit itself, although it is powerful in itself, but the future conduction of that suit with all of the Hearings, the Motions, the Discovery, etc. that will unfold, slowly and carefully, Barrett's operation in all of its grisly detail. 

I have no doubt that we will, in this action, discover Barrett's paymasters.  For Barrett is going to need truckloads of money to defend.

Frankly, I recommend that Doctor's Data proceed slowly and carefully, attacking the situation softly, for I have reason to believe that Barrett, despite all of his bravado facade, is extremely fragile emotionally, and might, literally, die from this experience, before they can extract from him, the information they need to skewer those that actually run Barrett.

For instance, although very tempting, I am not sure that the Deposition of Barrett, ripping from him the information Doctor's Data needs, should necessarily be videotaped, for I am not sure Barrett's heart could stand up to the realization of what is happening to him.

On the other hand, I realize that Barrett has deep psychological problems, and that he does not testify well in Court, especially under duress, so it is likely that a videotaped Deposition is just exactly what is necessary - with a copy on the internet for all to see.

But, a couple of interesting side points have emerged...

As you may recall from my earlier article - 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.

What are the interesting side points? 

(1)  The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) has disappeared.  Their very own website no longer gives any information about their Board Members, their membership, etc.  The website says that it is now owned by Stephen Barrett.

Huh?  Barrett now owns the NCAHF?  I don't think so.  What I think is happening is that there is a major falling out among the scumsuckers.  I suspect that Barrett probably was questioned about his activities by some other Board Member, and Barrett decided to show them who was who by taking the website away from the actual Board.

However, that does not relieve the actual NCAHF Board Members of their legal obligations in this lawsuit.  The Summons will be sent to their legal address of record - 841 Santa Rita Avenue, Los Altos, CA, 94022 - the 1.5 million dollar home of Wallace Sampson MD, NCAHF Board Member. 

The NCAHF can go get it's own lawyers and defend.

(2)  The Consumer Health Digest is, according to Barrett, a joint effort of quackwatch and the NCAHF, and is jointly edited by Barrett and William M. London.  London is employed by the California State University Los Angeles campus in the Health Sciences Department.

So, the question here is:  Is London, and his employer CSULA a Defendant also?  Will they be?  Then too, I think that the Consumer Health Digest email list is definitely worth subpoenaing.  Why?  Because it is there,  I think you will find a list of Barrett's ratty little helpers - those, in essence, named in section (9) Civil Conspiracy, of the lawsuit.

And THAT is where the real fun will begin.

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.

Stay tuned.  Much more to come...