Re: Another Fun - Millions of Health Freedom Fighters - Newsletter

On Oct 10, 3:53 pm, Mark STANLEY Probert <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:13 pm, Tim Bolen <jurim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 10, 8:33 am, Mark STANLEY Probert <-.@.-> wrote:

Tim Bolen <jurim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:55 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Bolen <jurim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Barrett Responds to Doctor's Data v Barrett Lawsuit...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen

I'm glad you call it "opinion", Pat, because it certainly ain't
fact.

Sunday, October 10th, 2010

Warning - sarcasm present.

Finally - a Response from Stephen Barrett et al, in the Doctor's
Data
v Barrett Federal lawsuit.  In essence, Barrett's legal team took
forty-four (44) pages to say "We deny everything. So there."  And,
it
took Barrett one hundred and seventeen (117) days to come up with
that
answer.  This from a guy who, Court documents show, was commenting
on
cases filed against his victims up to one day (-1) before the
actual
filing.

Strangely, the Response was filed, not by Barrett's so-called
"lead"
attorney Micheal K. Botts but by the local counsel Peter M.
Katsaros,
a senior partner at Golan and Christie in Chicago.  Hmmm?

Perhaps because it needed a lawyer with a licence in the appropriate
jurisdiction.

It looks like Barrett's legal bills are piling up.

You can read the whole boring 44 page Response by clicking here.
The
whole thing consists of copying the words in the Plaintiff's
Original
Complaint and then saying, after each paragraph:  "we deny that,
blah,
blah, blah..."  My - guess - about two hours worth of legal work.
And, that took 117 days?

Well, Pat, that's the way lawyers respond to crazy claims by crooks
like Doctors' Data. They provide the minimum response necessary.

None of the vitriolic that Barrett spewed out to his support
network
was present in the Response.  No complaints that his "1st Amendment
rights were being violated by the suit," nor any of his "show me
where
I was wrong" crap, was in the answer - and, it was only 44 pages..

Well, Pat, that's the way lawyers respond to crazy claims by crooks
like Doctors' Data. They provide the minimum response necessary.

My view - the Response was limp.  Flaccid.  Uninspired.  Drooping.
Sagging.  Lifeless.

Getting a bit self-referential there, Pat?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

poor peter:

I am disappointed, peter, in your performance here.  You seem to
pretend you are a player in this game.  

That would be you who is pretending. Since you stopes threatening people
with being made defendants, which was right after I alerted DDI's
attorneys of your antics, you stopped doing it. Imagine that.

But when I offer you the

opportunity to actually participate in the action you can't remember
those simple things you bragged about just a few months ago.

Now you are imagining things. And, it was not your opportunity to offer.

So, peter, once again:  Are you still running those ant-quackery and
skeptic webrings based in Ashland, Oregon, putting you within the
Jurisdiction of the US courts?

It does not work that way. For a foreign national I believe his physical
presence in the US is required.

Don't wimp out here peter, like you usually do.  Man up...

Speaking of which, why did the Navy let you out early? Or did they kick
you out?

Amused in California...

Still in the woods?

BTW, did you see the BolenRetort??

Fake Tim Bolen
http://www..com
http://www..org

--
Cry "Havoc!"and let slip the dogs of war Sent from my iPhone Ignore
typos

Mark:

I am beginning to think you are not actually a disbarred attorney.
Even a law school student would have a better knowledge of the law
than what you display.

Oh? We serve several hundred legal papers per month. I am quite
familiar with Rule 4 FRCP as it applies to foreign nationals outside
of the confines of the United States. In fact, one of our clients
generates A dozen or so of these each month.

Obviously, you are wrong. Go find out why.



poor peter is petrified, and will, suddenly, not admit his management
of the web rings, for he knows full well his doing business in the US
with that puts him within the jurisdiction of the US Court.

Merely doing business is not sufficient for in persona jurisdiction of
a foreign national.



Doctor's Data's attorneys have Barrett almost on his knees,
whimpering, begging for mercy, and poor peter is not man enough to
accept his responsibilities.  He is simply a sissy wimp - just like
the rest of the skeptics - all of them.



Mark:

So you are now a Process Server?

That explains a lot.

Tim Bolen
http://www.bolenreport.com
http://www.quackpotwatch.org
.

Relevant Pages