Quackpot "bobbie baratz" RIPPED APART,
ONCE AGAIN, This Time in a Texas Hearing...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate
Sunday, February 26th, 2011
For years Stephen Barrett MD and
Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD have been practically joined at the
hip attacking cutting-edge health care practitioners
and paradigms. Barrett with his sleazy website
combinations, and Baratz, alleging himself to be the
president of the National Council Against Health
Fraud (NCAHF), formed a one-two punch across America.
They did it virtually everywhere.
Usually, in a health
professional State licensing hearing situation,
Barrett files a Complaint against a practitioner
victim, and recommends himself, Baratz, or both, as
an expert witness. If they are
successful in getting a Formal Complaint filed,
either or both put that information on their
websites, then they seek out local attorneys, near
their practitioner victims, to arrange lawsuits
against that practitioner, offering, once again,
their "expert" services.
Sometimes, as in a group of
lawsuits filed supposedly by the NCAHF in
California, they filed suit using the NCAHF name,
and made themselves paid "expert" witnesses.
However, as it turns out, some,
if not most, States could call this activity,
Barratry, a criminal act. Texas calls it a
Felony of the Third Degree. California lists
it as a Misdemeanor. Illinois, on the other
hand, calls it a Petty Offense.
So, it was with great joy that
I got invited to assist Texas attorney
Ronald Armstrong in a hearing before the Texas
Medical Board cross-examining the testimony of Robert
S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD (bobbie baratz) on Monday,
February 13th, 2012. Baratz was there as a
so-called "expert witness" testifying against Autism
doctor Jesus Caquias MD, formerly of Care Clinics in
Austin. Five Complaints to the Texas Medical
Board (that we know of) had been filed against
Caquias by Stephen Barrett. Armstrong was VERY
clear in his view of what was happening - and
intended to pursue it.
"Well, well..." I said to my
self. "This is going to be fun..."
what in the world is Barratry?
In Illinois Barratry is
32-11. Barratry. If a person wickedly and willfully
excites and stirs up actions or quarrels between the
people of this State with a view to promote strife
and contention, he or she is guilty of the petty
offense of common barratry; and if he or she is
an attorney at law, he or she shall be suspended
from the practice of his or her profession, for any
time not exceeding 6 months.
In California, Barratry
Code Section 158: "Common barratry is the practice
of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000). California Penal Code
Section 159: "No person can be convicted of common
barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits
or proceedings at law in at least three instances,
and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and
In Texas, Barratry is
defined: Penal Code Section 38.12 - a Third
Degree Felony. Thomas J. Henry a
personal injury attorney writes in his blawg:
"Barratry in Texas
Since the 1800s
Texas lawmakers have worked to end illegal
solicitation, and the law has undergone multiple
updates and revisions. In 1876, the legislature
passed its first statute criminalizing barratry. The
1876 statute made it unlawful for any person to
willfully instigate or encourage litigation, in
which that person had no interest, with the intent
to harass the defendant or to bring a false suit
with the intent to harass the defendant. In 1901,
the statute was amended for the purpose of also
making it illegal to stir up litigation by
soliciting employment or advancing money to
prospective clients to procure employment. In the
early years of the statute, attorneys were the only
professionals that were forbidden to solicit
employment. However, the current statute
criminalizes solicitation by a lawyer or a layman
for the purpose of obtaining employment for economic
The actual Texas law says:
BARRATRY AND SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL
(a) A person
commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an
economic benefit the person:
(1) knowingly institutes a suit or claim that the
person has not been authorized to pursue;
(2) solicits employment, either in person or by
telephone, for himself or for another;
(3) pays, gives, or advances or offers to pay, give,
or advance to a prospective client money or anything
of value to obtain employment as a professional from
the prospective client;
(4) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a person
money or anything of value to solicit employment;
(5) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a family
member of a prospective client money or anything of
value to solicit employment; or
(6) accepts or agrees to accept money or anything of
value to solicit employment.
(b) A person
commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowingly finances the commission of an offense
under Subsection (a);
(2) invests funds the person knows or believes are
intended to further the commission of an offense
under Subsection (a); or
(3) is a professional who knowingly accepts
employment within the scope of the person's license,
registration, or certification that results from the
solicitation of employment in violation of
(c) It is an
exception to prosecution under Subsection (a) or (b)
that the person's conduct is authorized by the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct or any
rule of court.
(d) A person
commits an offense if the person:
(1) is an attorney, chiropractor, physician,
surgeon, or private investigator licensed to
practice in this state or any person licensed,
certified, or registered by a health care regulatory
agency of this state;
(2) with the intent to obtain professional
employment for himself or for another, sends or
knowingly permits to be sent to an individual who
has not sought the person's employment, legal
representation, advice, or care a written
(A) concerns an action for personal injury or
wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident
or disaster involving the person to whom the
communication is addressed or a relative of that
person and that was mailed before the 31st day after
the date on which the accident or disaster occurred;
(B) concerns a specific matter and relates to legal
representation and the person knows or reasonably
should know that the person to whom the
communication is directed is represented by a lawyer
in the matter;
(C) concerns an arrest of or issuance of a summons
to the person to whom the communication is addressed
or a relative of that person and that was mailed
before the 31st day
after the date on which the arrest or issuance of
the summons occurred;
(D) concerns a lawsuit of any kind, including an
action for divorce, in which the person to whom the
communication is addressed is a defendant or a
relative of that person, unless the lawsuit in which
the person is named as a defendant has been on file
for more than 31 days before the date on which the
communication was mailed;
(E) is sent or permitted to be sent by a person who
knows or reasonably should know that the injured
person or relative of the injured person has
indicated a desire not to be contacted by or receive
communications concerning employment;
(F) involves coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching,
harassment, intimidation, or undue influence; or
(G) contains a false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, or unfair statement or claim.
(e) For purposes
of Subsection (d)(2)(E), a desire not to be
contacted is presumed if an accident report reflects
that such an indication has been made by an injured
person or that person's relative.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a) or (b) is a
felony of the third degree.
(g) Except as
provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (d) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(h) An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of
the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the
offense that the defendant has previously been
convicted under Subsection (d).
(i) Final conviction of felony barratry is a serious
crime for all purposes and acts, specifically
including the State Bar Rules and the Texas Rules of
Although this story is about
what happened in Texas recently, the Illinois and
California Barratry definitions are related.
Keep that in mind.
(a) An individual
adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree
(like Barratry) shall be punished by
imprisonment in the institutional division for any
term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual
adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may
be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
what happened at the hearing?
It was fun. However, for
the first time in a very long time, bobbie didn't
dive over, or under, a table when I walked into the
room. He did look, however, like a triple
Valium was guiding his day. I think he knew
what was coming, even though I gave no hint I'd be
If you are curious, yes, bobbie
still dresses like he shops for his clothes at the
Salvation Army Store in the poorer part of town.
Which, come to think of it, is probably very
practical for him, since at some point dry cleaning
would not be able to do anything about the kind of
stains from sweat exuded from his body, into his
clothing, when he gets
cross-examined in a court setting. Toxins are,
after all, are toxins.
The Texas Medical Board attorney, Lee
Bukstein, did make a feeble effort to get me out of
the room - but it went nowhere.
To put where we are going with
this article into perspective, let me do two things:
(1) remind you that the original complaint against
Jesus Caquias was filed by bobbie baratz's buddy
Stephen Barrett. To refresh your memory of
this situation read through "In
Texas (2) - Feds Spit On Barrett's Claims About
Austin's CARE Clinics...".
Then (2) check out this excerpt
below from an earlier article I wrote on the
subject. The article, titled "In
Texas..." said, in part:
"They found, of
course, that the Texas Medical Board had an
"Anonymous Complaint" system - meaning that the
complainant would be hidden.
They also found out that there was a consistency in
the complaints, and that those same complaints ended
up on one of
Stephen Barrett's websites LONG BEFORE the
doctor got a copy of it. Local newspapers were
Also, they found out that the so-called "expert
witness" against the doctor was, inevitably, the
current president of the NCAHF
bobbie baratz, the guy with the
fake resume. We had put bobbie
on trial in Wisconsin, over his credibility -
and he didn't do well. So, as you probably have
already guessed, my files on him made their way to
Texas, to more than one attorney. (grin here).
Let's see... Two plus two = four. Four plus four =
eight. Barrett plus Baratz = anonymous complaint?
Funny thing - the Medical Board cases, using bobbie
baratz, didn't do very well. I wonder why? (sarcasm
intended). But, the pattern was obvious, so the
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons,
with Andrew Schlafly at the legal helm, stepped in
the lawsuit. And, as of this month, Discovery
At the beginning of any court
hearing both parties deliver their Opening
Statements, detailing the case from both sides.
Lee Bukstein, for the Texas Medical Board, of
course, vomited the standard Stephen Barrett/bobbie
baratz line, depicting Jesus Caquias MD as totally incompetent, dangerous, crazy, and
victimizing of desperate parents, blah, blah, blah,
Typical quackbuster drivel right out of the book.
Ronald Armstrong politely let him
get through it, yawning only now and then.
However, when Armstrong began HIS Opening Statement
Lee Bukstein began, literally, bouncing up and down on
his left ass-cheek, his face turned bright red, and
his breathing became almost choking. He
simply could not sit still. The blonde woman
attorney sitting next to him (name unknown), who
previously pawed, touched, simpered at, leaned on
(hasn't Texas heard of "sexual harassment?)
Bukstein couldn't calm him down.
Ronald Armstrong blatantly brought up the
violation of Texas Barratry law in his Opening
Statement Bukstein leaped to his feet, flailed
around the center of the room like a string puppet
caught in a fan, while nearly screaming at the two
Administrative Law Judges begging them to stop
Ronald Armstrong from entering this information
into the Texas Medical Board Record. Bukstein
"complainants names are kept anonymous, complainants
names are kept anonymous, complainants names are
Clearly Buckstein was terrified that the facts of
this instance of "Barratry" would get into the
Why did Bukstein do this? I think he did it
Ronald Armstrong pointed out, the Texas Medical
Board was officially notified of this "Barratry"
situation in July of 2011 and did nothing about it -
making them, and particularly Bukstein, part of the
"Barratry." How is that? Because
the Texas law section says "(1)
knowingly finances the commission of an offense
under Subsection (a);"
applies, very likely to
Buckstein, AND the entire Texas Medical Board once
they were formally, and officially, notified of what
was going on.
Things were about to get exciting.
From that point on I was expecting both Bukstein
and bobbie baratz to drop dead on the spot, from the
stress of the situation.
The essence of the case
against Jesus Caquias MD...
The Texas Medical Board (Bukstein) had subpoenaed
five patient records, from Caquias, after the Austin
Care Clinics had closed, and their records were
stored in various places. Several health
insurance companies had stopped paying Care Clinics
after having been contacted by Barrett and/or
Baratz. Caquias responded to the subpoena,
with a letter telling the Board that he had not been
at the clinic for months, had no ownership of the
records, and that they must contact the owner of the
clinic with their subpoena. Bukstein did
contact the owner who informed them that the
thousands of patient records were in a jumble since
the clinic lost their lease, and they would do the
best they could. Bukstein received,
obviously, very little of the records. Not
long after the original request the FBI and IRS came
in, guns drawn, and seized every box, file,
computer, whatever, in sight and hauled them all
down to storage claiming, in the press, that they
were "investigating for insurance fraud..."
Then, like only in a movie,
a small plane dove, intentionally, into the IRS
building where the records were stored.
The plane story, which made national, and
international news, apparently escaped the notice of
Bukstein, who further demanded more records even
after he was given a copy of the IRS letter to Care
Clinics informing them of the damage to the records.
Then, of course, Bukstein filed charges against Caquias claiming that "Caquias had not kept
adequate records." Bukstein brought in
none other than bobbie baratz to "review, and
report on Caquias's records..."
after "investigating for insurance fraud..."
the Feds dropped the investigation, finding no cause
to proceed further.
essence of the State's case? "Jesus Caquias
is a bad doctor who doesn't keep adequate records,
and practices chelation, and other alternative
medicine." The offered proof? Bobbie
baratz says it's so.
baratz, we know, isn't what one would call an
"expert witness." Or even a knowledgeable one.
He has more skeletons in his closet than a
mausoleum. For sure, there is the transcript,
floating around, of the July 15th and 16th, 2003
"Baratz Credibility Hearing," ordered by a Judge in
Wisconsin. Baratz was shattered, skewered, and
punctured in that event - so much so I thought he'd
never try to testify again, or that anyone would
ever even try to use him again.
But here he is...
Although this was a VERY SERIOUS Texas
Medical Board hearing with serious
consequences looming, there were, for
me, some very funny parts, especially
concerning the antics of Lee Bukstein.
Watching him bounce on his left
ass-cheek virtually every day made me
wonder if there is such a thing as
"ass-cheek therapy." This boy
would have needed it.
Ronald Armstrong's beginning of
Baratz's cross-examination, the veins in
Bukstein's head began to stick out,
especially when Armstrong asked Baratz
if he had contacted his own attorney
about the Barratry issue. Once
again, Bukstein, got ready to leap to
his feet, his breath coming in gasps,
while Armstrong sat there calmly, his
words, and in fact every letter in every
word, raising Buckstein's blood pressure
another point, and causing another left
ass-cheek bounce. Finally,
Bukstein was on his feet again, darting
around like a rat trying to avoid a cat,
almost whining, begging the
Administrative Law Judges to stop
But it got even better when Armstrong
approached Baratz with a copy of a
letter from one of Baratz's former
employers. The letter berated
Baratz for "Sexually Harassing his
female employees." Baratz was
terminated by this employer shortly
thereafter. Here is
a copy of the
letter for you to read. (More
Then Armstrong came again to Baratz,
this time handing him a copy of an
advertisement for Baratz's own clinic in
a local newspaper - featuring his Hair
Removal Services, and Botox offerings.
But it was Armstrong's introduction of
July 2003 Wisconsin Credibility
Hearing for Baratz that caused the
biggest uproar. Bukstein
literally came unglued. He simply
would not let Armstrong talk. He
waved his arms, jumped up and down on
his feet. Spittle was flying
around the room. Bukstein's whole
case was flying apart on just his first
witness. Of course, his first
witness was bobbie baratz. He
should have known better.
There were three other prosecution
witnesses. None of any note.
In fact, the other "expert witness" for
the State more or less came out for the
Defense started their case...
And, it was a whole different world.
There were three parents of Autism
children patients testifying, two of
which were patients the Texas Medical
Board was trying to use against Dr.
Caquias. All of them testified
about how the records THEY had took up
whole file boxes, as many as three, and
not the two inches the prosecutor
claimed were Caquias's records.
They also talked about the "independent
evaluations" of their children's
physical condition before, during, and
after their treatment by Caquias - and,
consequently, how happy they were with
the amazing results.
There were two "expert witnesses"
testifying on behalf of the Defense, and
they were real.
Then the Nurse Practitioner from the
closed Care Clinics testified
about how they specifically kept
records in the clinic, and that what the prosecutor
(Buckstein) was offering as " patient
records" was nonsense.
Then, of course Jesus Caquias MD
testified for hours, carefully
explaining how the clinic was run, and
how patients were treated..
We'll see what happens.
I can tell you right now, that
"barratry" issue is just coming to a
head. In my estimation Barrett,
Baratz, and certain Texas Medical Board
members would do well to find themselves
a criminal attorney to help them through
the coming months. I see as many
as twenty four counts coming up.
There was a reason
Ronald Armstrong was getting that
official "barratry" language into the
Medical Board Record.
Tim Bolen - Consumer
About Bolen Report
Search this site
Jesus Caquias MD, Tim Bolen, Ronald Armstrong, Robert Baratz, Stephen
Barrett, lee bukstein,Texas Medical Board, Texas Barratry law,
Penal Code Section 38.12
Copyright 2005-2012 by Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group |
All Rights Reserved