Federal Court Puts Barrett/Quackwatch/Skeptics "On Notice..."

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

Monday, April 30th,  2012

The Skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) are pretty much in a panic.  Suddenly, not all that long ago. they began conducting the equivalent of online legal training, amongst themselves, trying to clean up their organizational assault so they don't, either individually, or in a group, get sued.

There is no doubt that a series of lawsuits, directed at their activity, has them spooked.

The most obvious of those lawsuits, of course, is the Doctor's Data v Barrett, et al, federal court case.  The second, by my analysis, is the Wakefield v Brian Deer, et al, case in Austin, Texas.  There are others, but they pale in comparison to these two.  And, more importantly, the pseudo-skeptics fear that this crop of lawsuits will grow into a wave of legal assaults against them across North America. 

Their fear is well grounded.

As you know, I have been writing a series of articles not only outlining the activities of this batch of nefarious internet lurkers, but identifying who they are, how they are funded, and what kind of people provide leadership within their organization.

The information is not pleasant for normal people to read.

What is really interesting about the organized pseudo-skeptic assault is that the assault itself is billed by a from-the-top-down approach as "free speech."  For instance, the Amherst, New York based Center For Inquiry (CFI), using its massive secret funding, last August 11th, 2012, hired an attorney, Steve Fox, who, they describe:

"A native of Buffalo, New York, Fox has been active in supporting First Amendment causes and projects, primarily on free speech and religious freedom issues. Prior to building an international private practice focused on intellectual property law, he clerked for the U.S. House of Representatives and for a Philadelphia judge. He is considered by many to be Western New York’s foremost expert on copyright, privacy, and internet law." 

Why would CFI hire an attorney for this?  Probably for two reasons:  (1)  Stephen Barrett claimed that he, Barrett, was engaging in "Free Speech" when he attacked Doctor's Data, and filed a Motion to Dismiss making such a claim - but the Federal Court threw that claim back in his face, ordering Barrett, and the other Defendants to trial.   There are limits to what defines "Free Speech." (2)  CFI takes in secret money, lots of it, and uses it for secret purposes, many of which are slowly being revealed.  For instance, CFI, pretending consumer-based benevolent "skepticism" is attacking the science of Homeopathy, very publicly.  See below:

In short, what I think is happening here is that the-powers-that-be have abandoned the old  Barrett-Quackwatch-NCAHF misinformation model in favor of a better funded Amherst, New York based situation.

Meet Quackwatch's proposed replacement...

People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones...

I have to laugh here.  Why?  If anyone, anywhere, were the epitome of the meaning of the old adage "People Who Live in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones" it would be the pseudo-skeptics.  I'm not going to enlarge on that right now.  Instead, I'm going to tell you what recently happened in Federal Court.

Last week I wrote about the "Protective Order" sought by Doctor's Data against Barrett, his minions, and hangers-on due to their Witness Intimidation activities in the Doctor's Data v Barrett, et al, federal court case..  Then I wrote a follow-up article.

Now for the funny part.  You wouldn't believe how upset the pseudo-skeptics became with me after those articles.  These nitwits just cannot take being told the truth about life.  Peter Bowditch, after reading my message, practically swore he would violate any court order he didn't like.  He said "Come and get me..."  However, as pseudo-skeptics usually get, when push comes to shove, once I asked Bowditch to verify that he, in fact, INTENDED to violate the Judge's Order, he suddenly became silent on the subject. 

One thing I have noticed is that the pseudo-skeptics are not known for bravery.   "Macho" is not a term used to describe pseudo-skeptics.  Not hardly.  For the most part these people hide behind fake internet names - afraid to come out of the closet, so to speak.  Most have several internet names. These, in their anger at me, flung their wrists around.

Stay tuned.

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate