How so, you ask, since a good part of the sleazy skeptic (pseudo-skeptic) operation is intentionally based outside the US, so as to make it hard for the average victim to sue them, or to enforce court judgments?
That question is much easier to answer than you would think. And, the answer is short - and to the point - the world-wide web is based in the US. Hence, court jurisdiction is in the US.
Example - suppose one of the more well known pseudo-skeptics, Peter Bowditch, decides to ignore the "Protective Order," and attack witnesses on his Australian based websites. Easy answer - he'd get one Order signed by the court, and a time limit to comply, whether he is in Australia or not. After he refuses to obey, or misses the time limit, Doctor's Data simply informs the judge of that fact, and hands the Judge a new Motion - one, this time, ordering the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), based in Marina Del Rey, CA, to seize Bowditch's internet domains - and turn them off. Poof - in a microsecond, Bowditch is gone from the internet, a bad memory, like a fart in an elevator.
More, according to my research, most of the pseudo-skeptics are people, due to personal issues, who find it hard to hold employment. Therefore, they are taught, at organized pseudo-skeptic meetings, to use free services like Wordpress blogs, and tie them together according to the co-conspiratorial plan designed, and taught, by one Tim Farley. Those meetings are funded by, and organized by, pseudo-skeptic non-profit corporations I have described before.
So how do you deal with that situation? Easy. A violation, and a refusal, or a missing of time limits, ordered by the court simply has Doctor's Data's attorneys back in court with a new Motion, this time ordering Wordpress to turn these people off - en masse. And, Wordpress would comply within minutes of being given the order.
So, is the "Protective Order" real? Would it really protect witnesses, and prospective witnesses from retaliation?
Oh yeah... Like never before. In spades.
In summary, once again...
Recently filed Court documents clearly show that Doctor's Data is asking the Judge in the case to put a stop to Barrett, and his cronies, intimidating witnesses and prospective witnesses in the Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal court case.
Below is an excerpt from a document you can read in its entirety by clicking here. In fact, in that file are four separate documents, all related. The first is the actual Motion, the second the confidentiality agreement, the third is the agreement signature page, and the fourth is Barrett's threatening email to Joe Mercola MD.
What you are about to read is unusual in court cases. But, as we all know, there comes a time when society's scum, like Stephen Barrett, are going to get dragged into court for their activities. So, you can expect, from this sort of low life form (Barrett) that non-acceptable activities will be brought to bear. Witness Intimidation is one of those activities. There are legal ways to combat that. Below is one of them. Above, the criminal statute, is another.
What Doctor's Data is asking the court to do is to prohibit, by "Protective Order," Barrett, his associates, or any of the other Defendants, from using the media, including the internet, to harass or intimidate witnesses or potential witnesses, not only during the trial, but for ten years after it is over. Violation of the Court's order would result in "Contempt of Court" charges being filed against the perpetrators.
"Contempt of Court" charges would have serious consequences for Barrett, his minions, and "aiders and abettors (skeptics)," a term described below.
Indirect Criminal Contempt—Persons Against Whom the Action May Be Commenced
To be held in criminal contempt for violation of a court order, the defendant must be an original party, one legally identified with an original party, or an aider and abettor of one of the above enumerated persons. Backo v. Local 281, United Brothers of Carpenters and Joiners, 438 F.2d 176, 180-81 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 858 (1971); Reich v. United States, 239 F.2d 134, 137 (1st Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1004 (1957). But see Manness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975) (attorney giving good faith legal advice not to be found in contempt).
The Bottom Line...