Monday June 7th, 2010

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Oh my, the "Barrett Settlement" story, in San Diego, is getting even better.  It seems that now the Federal judge in the case has assigned a Federal Magistrate Judge, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo "to retain jurisdiction for settlement purposes."

Wow - this could could get interesting.  VERY interesting.  I'll explain.

I have a copy, right here on my desk, of the settlement statement wording agreed to, and ORDERED by the Court, and so far, I don't see that wording on Barrett's website, nor do I see his minions mouthing those COURT ORDERED words.  Apparently they must all be in shock and cannot bring themselves to comply with the Court Order.

And NO, I'm not going to tell you what those COURT ORDERED words are.  I'm going to wait and see what happens.  Frankly, I hope Barrett decides to defy the Federal Magistrate Judge.  Then Negrete can file for an Order of Contempt.  Being called on the carpet in front of a Federal Judge could have serious consequences for Barrett.

Contempt, in a Federal court, is taken very seriously.  Below is the official definition:     

Any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court; punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. There are both civil and criminal contempts; the distinction is often unclear.

A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court's authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil. Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act.

Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. In family law, civil contempt is one way a court enforces alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated.

However, many courts have realized that, at least regarding various procedural matters such as appointment of counsel, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is often blurred and uncertain.

Why I think Barrett is at Risk...

Barrett has problems accepting reality.  On his website you will find a myriad of exampIes where Barrett cannot seem to grasp the idea that he didn't turn out to be right. Health professionals, for instance, are constantly complaining that Barrett posts Accusations against those doctors that were thrown out by the Courts, yet Barrett leaves them there as though they were true.  In my own case, Barrett's claim against me was thrown out by the Courts, yet Barrett has not removed it.

I think that Stephen Barrett  has deep-seated psychological problems that will not allow him to act within the bounds of normal behavior.  It appears to me that his world is one of his own making where he, and he alone, makes up all the rules.  For instance, Barrett describes himself as a "Retired Psychiatrist," when, in fact, he could never pass even the basic testing to become Board Certified in that specialty.  More important is that Barrett has been officially declared, in a published Appeals Court Decision, to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility," yet there he is blithely offering his writings as though they had any merit.

I believe that Barrett has his own made-up version of what US law is all about.  For instance, I think that in his mind, he is in charge of US law.  Several years ago Barrett and Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD, the guy I call "shitbag bobbie," using the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), sued Homeopathic manufacturers in California under a section of law called B&P 17200, claiming, among other things, that the science of Homeopathy was fraud because it hadn't been proven, blah, blah, blah. 

Of course they lost the cases for many different reasons. 

It was one of those cases (NCAHF v King Bio) where Barrett and another NCAHF Board Member Wallace Sampson, were declared to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility."  More though, in that case and others, the Court pointed out that the NCAHF was using its own Board Members as supposed expert witnesses, and as the Court pointed out, you cannot be the Plaintiff and your own expert witness. 

In another of those Homeopathic cases the NCAHF, because of Barrett and Baratz's activities, was ordered to pay over a $100,000 in the Defendant's legal fees - which, of course, they never paid.  That Judgment still sits there uncollected.  I have offered to buy it (at a discount) and have promised to collect it with great vigor and energy.

The way I see it Barrett put his manhood on the line when he attacked me with a lawsuit in Oakland, California.  As we all know, Barrett simply never came out to do battle, and the newest Judge in the case tossed the attack out for lack of activity.  Barrett has a long history of similar courtroom losses which, I think, point strongly at serious character, or personality, flaws.

More, I think Barrett is being edged out of the quackbuster movement.  The powers-that-be, I think, see Barrett as a stinky old problem - more trouble than he is worth, and would like to put David Gorski MD (Orac the Nipple Ripper) at the helm - but Barrett simply won't die or go away.  I don't think Barrett can face the idea that his own movement wants him gone - and the sooner the better.

Barrett, I think, has been relegated, in the quackbuster movement, to operating secretly, because if he operated openly, he would be removed from the action.  In short, Barrett cannot be considered by authority as a credible source or witness in any kind of Court or even an Administrative action - so he has to operate behind the scenes.

Authorities have laws and rules governing the acceptance of complaints.  They must, without equivocation, consider the source of the complaint, and Barrett, for several legal reasons, including, of course, the fact that he has been formally declared by the US Court system to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility," does not qualify as a credible source, and certainly never an an expert witness.

So, what the above situation means, in my opinion, is that any public employee, including a prosecutor, puts their career on the line using Barrett for any reason.  In short, Barrett has become useless as a tool for the quackbuster operation.

That's why,  I think, Barrett is operating in Texas - there they have "anonymous complaints," and Barrett can spew secretly, and State prosecutors don't have to reveal that their investigations and complaints come from an unreliable source. 

But Barrett made a big mistake in Texas when he filed an anonymous complaint then offered himself as an expert witness in the same case - for then his identity became known.  And, in Texas, when you make a complaint and offer your professional services in a certain way, you run afoul of the law - a third degree felony called "§ 38.12. BARRATRY AND SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT."  And, you can be assured that the guy Barrett did this to is pressing this issue.

In short, Barrett is facing a myriad of problems he created for himself, and frankly, I don't think his mind is wrapping around the idea that his view of the world is not shared with the rest of humanity.  Consequently, I think that attorney Carlos Negrete trapped Barrett into a position Barrett simply cannot process, and because of that I don't think Barrett will comply with the Court Orders.

There is no question in my mind why Barrett offered Settlement in the San Diego case - he was bluffing right from the start.  He settled because he knew he could not win in a Courtroom - because his claim had no merit.  Hence, I have to assume that the original cross-complaint did have merit.

So, I think, it won't be long before Stephen Barrett  is going to learn a hard lesson from a Federal Magistrate Judge in San Diego.  It may be that Barrett is forbidden by the terms of the Settlement Agreement to reveal the terms of the Agreement - but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have to comply with that Agreement.

So, stay tuned...