Prosecutors Professional Misconduct and Fabrication of The Facts

PROSECUTORS FABRICATION OF THE FACTS
AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
1) GOVERNMENT’S CONCEALMENT OF FAVORABLE EVIDENCE
A. Customer Verifications 1

2) GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO INCLUDE ALL PERSONS/AGENTS IN THE
OFFENSE
A. Exclusion of “Distributing and Dispensing” Agents
The Government did not include the agent that “dispensed and
distributed” the “controlled substance,” charged in the indictment.
These agents were pharmacist, licensed by the Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration. In addition, the pharmacist were
licensed and registered by State Pharmacy Boards.

The Government elected to utilize the following law as the basis of this
prosecution:

Section 1306.04 Purpose of issue of prescription.

“(a) A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective
must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an
individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his
professional practice. The responsibility for the proper
prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the
prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility
rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order
purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of
professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized
research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of
section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly
filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person
issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for
violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled

1
Proof of the Governments Concealment of Favorable Evidence
Page 1 of 17

substances.”

21 U.S.C. 353(a). Canons of statutory interpretation suggest that every
word has meaning and that the presence of a word in one area and its
absence in another is supposed to add to the statute’s
interpretation. The Government’s dismantling of the law by deliberately
“sidestepping” the actual “manner and means” in which the “controlled
substances” were “distributed and dispensed” to fit the crime is a grave
abuse of discretion and cannot continue to go unchallenged.

The fact is that without the pharmacies’ involvement, the alleged
criminal acts could not and would not have occurred.

All of the criminal Counts in the Indictment are based on sales of
“controlled substances” “dispensed and distributed” by the pharmacy
agents. The pharmacy element is significant in this case. 2 3

The pharmacies’ obligations and responsibilities are distinctly defined in
the “Supplier Agreement” [legally binding contracts].

Ironically, the Government conveniently chose to reference the
payments to pharmacies [as seen below] to formulate money‐
laundering charges but chose not ignore the involvement in the alleged
criminal acts.

AMOUNT OF ACCOUNT ACCOUNT TRANSACTION
COUNTS DATE
TRANSACTION TRANSACTION FROM TO
6 6/26/2002 $261,515.59 SpeedScripts Citibank 3200011672

2
PSR #14: GOVERNMENTS CLARIFICATION: “The Government clarified that the eScripts business distributed
phentermine. and other prescription drugs including controlled substances. to customers without any valid
prescription.”
3
PSR #25: “The participants operated several online businesses which distributed the drugs commonly
known as Phentermine, Bontril, Adipex, and Meridia.”
Page 2 of 17

16 3/19/2002 $370,824.46 Infustat, Inc. Citibank 32002274778
20 4/17/2002 $272,612 .79 Infustat, Inc. Citibank 32002274778
25 5/1/2002 $127,016.10 Atlas Rx Colonial Bank 8010068214
29 6/19/2002 $109,570 .88 Atlas Rx Colonial Bank 8010068214

There is sufficient reason to believe that the Government has
suppressed the pharmacies’ involvement to avoid inconsistencies within
the Department of Justice. Contradicting positions such as the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia’s declaration that
the business was illegal opposed to DEA and State Pharmacy Board’s
regulators found no wrongdoing by these pharmacy’s during
unannounced inspections.

The DEA findings from on‐site inspections found the pharmacies were
compliant for filling prescriptions for “controlled substances” via the
internet are inconsistent with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Inclusion of these medical professionals, licensed by the DEA,
complicates the Government’s Conspiracy theory. Rather than be
forthcoming regarding this issue, the Government has intentionally
precluded the pharmacies involvement in the alleged criminal conduct.

B. Exclusion of the Legal Architects
The defendant has displayed an extensive, well‐documented history of
Page 3 of 17

seeking and relying on the legal advice he received from his lawyers.

Before beginning the business, the defendant engaged specialized
healthcare law‐firms to provide legal advice before starting the business
and throughout the dates charged in the Indictment. The legal advice
was rendered by law‐firms such as Seyfarth Shaw, LLP; Kilpatrick
Stockton, LLP; and Arent Fox, LLC, all well recognized for holding high
ethical standards.

The defendant also engaged individual attorneys from smaller
independent firms, including a full‐time in‐house legal counsel. Most
importantly, as a preemptive measure, to eliminate possible risk, he
sought expert guidance from three former Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Legal advice was provided for incorporations, organizations, and
regulatory compliance consistently throughout the business operations.
During the time frame the Government alleges the illegal conduct
transpired, over 40 attorneys had been engaged in providing legal
advice.

There is overwhelming amount’s of evidence that displays the depths of
the attorneys’ involvement. The Government’s decision not to include
the legal architects of the alleged crimes, merit an explanation.

The legal work‐product is a “smoking gun” in this case. Evidence of the
legal advice provided by Seyfarth Shaw, Kilpatrick Stockton, Arent Fox,
criminal attorney Buddy Parker and in‐house attorney’s can be found at
StouffletJustice.com

Key elements that have been continuously ignored are the “LEGAL
CONTRACTS” drafted and consistently updated by STOUFFLET’S legal
counsel. These legal contracts define all elements of the business.

Page 4 of 17

Legal Contracts:
‐ Comprehensive Practice Management Agreement 4 5
‐ Informed Consent and Waiver 6
‐ Supplier Agreement 7

There is an implied understanding that legal contracts drafted by a law‐
firms are compliant with State and Federal Laws.

The evidence proves either:
> The lawyers facilitated and engaged in unlawful activity
or
> There was no Conspiracy

Prosecutors conduct reflects affirmative steps not only in concealing this
legal work product but a strategic change of position to exclude the legal
advice as stated throughout the Government’s Motion in Limine To
Exclude Good Faith Defenses.8

3) PLEA’S VOLUNTARINESS
On Thursday, February 28th 2008, ten days before trial, in a “sudden about‐
face”, the Government denied the defendant the ability to use the Advice‐
of–Counsel defense by filing the “MOTION IN LIMINE TO DENY GOOD FAITH
DEFENSES” [Doc 217] which contained false, misleading statements in
order to deceive the defendant.

The following day, Friday, March 1st 2008, the defendant was informed
that the Government would remove the plea option on Monday, March 3
2009, allowing the defendant approximately 72 hours to make such

4
Contract with medical doctors: Comprehensive Practice Management Agreement
5
In the trial of co‐defendant Dr. Andre Smith, it was convenient for the Government to reference these “Legal
Contracts”
[excerpt from Doc 281‐3 page 570]
“Q. As part of your agreements with eScripts, you agreed to comply with the laws of the state where you're
licensed, did you not?”
“Q. We could pull up ‐‐ maybe it went off ‐‐ you could look at paragraph 3.2 on page 4 of Government's
Exhibit 3‐A. I'll read it and you can follow along. It states very clearly that: "Medical services provided by the
physician," and that would be you, Doctor, correct?” Etc…etc….
6
Contract with the customers: Informed Consent
7
Contract with the pharmacies: Supplier Agreement
8
Doc. 217
Page 5 of 17

decision. This deadline would expire before the Court would rule on this
vital case element.

In November 2007, the defendant waived the Attorney‐Client‐Privilege and
disclosed all attorney‐client work‐product [all evidence] to the Government
so he could assert the “Advice‐of‐Counsel” defense.
By already having the defendants evidence and then the Government’s
decision to bar the defendant from using it in the Motion in Limine, the
government had armed themselves with the “Shield and the Sword.”

By obtaining STOUFFLET’S only viable defense and then forbidding him
from using it, the defendant was left defenseless.

To capitalize on the “unarmed and unprotected” prey, the Government
seized the opportunity to force the defendant into a Guilty Plea by the 72‐
hour ultimatum.

The 72 hour deadline and the deceptive Motion in Limine created panic and
duress for the defendant and it was under those circumstances he pleaded
Guilty. The defendant moves this Court to formally inquire and investigate
the “Voluntariness” in which the Plea was entered.

4) ESTOPPEL DEFENSES
A. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL
Throughout the proceedings the Government acknowledged and
maintained the position that the defendant would assert the “Advice‐of‐
Counsel” defense at trial.

On July 11, 2007, the Government filed “GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
DISCLOSURE OF RELIANCE ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL” [Doc 183]
specifically requesting the defendant provide the Government all of his
privileged attorney‐client work product so “the United States could
adequately prepare for trial.”

In November 2007, the defendant waived the Attorney‐Client‐Privilege
and disclosed all attorney‐client work‐product [all evidence] to the
Government so he could assert the “Advice‐of‐Counsel” defense.
Page 6 of 17

The Government had access for approximately 7 months to the
defendant’s Attorney‐Client‐Privilege work product information; all his
evidence.

Then on February 28th 2008, ten days before trial, the Government
denied the defendant the ability to use the Advice‐of–Counsel defense
by filing a “MOTION IN LIMINE TO DENY GOOD FAITH DEFENSES” [Doc
217]. This being the Government’s position, all evidence submitted by
the defendant should be considered as “illegally obtained” by the
Government.

After reviewing all of the defendant’s case information then the swift
changing of positions denying the defendant the ability to use it, the
defendant moves this Court to investigate the impairment caused by the
Government’s actions. The Government’s acts violate the defendant’s
Due Process Rights as they fail to observe fundamental fairness issues in
this prosecution.

Defendant STOUFFLET seeks protection under the DOCTRINE OF
ESTOPPEL which prevents asserting claims, defenses, or positions that
are inconsistent with claims, defenses, or positions, which that were
asserted in a prior proceeding.

B. ENTRAPMENT BY ESTOPPEL
Jan 2001: At the request of defendant STOUFFLET, the FDA Office of
Criminal Investigations investigated the defendants business and found
no wrongdoing and requested future guidance.

August 2001: Federal Judge Scoefeild ordered the Government to return
STOUFFLET’S business equipment so he could continue conducting
business

August 2001: AUSA Stroppli had no objection and agreed to return the
defendants business equipment to continue business.

At no time was the defendant provided any type of "Notice" that the
Page 7 of 17

business was illegal; but somehow the Government has justified
Indicting the defendant for the EXACT BUSINESS the Office of Criminal
Investigations APPROVED 5 years earlier.

5) FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS
The defendant fulfilled necessary elements required to assert “Advice‐of‐
Counsel” defense.

To rely on the advice of counsel defense, the defendant must show that:

(1) before taking action
(2) he in good faith sought the advice of an attorney whom he considered
to be competent
(3) for the purpose of securing advice on the lawfulness of his possible
future conduct
(4) and made a full and accurate report to his attorney of all material facts
which the defendant knew
(5) and acted strictly in accordance with the advice of his attorney who had
been given a full report

6) INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S SUPPRESSION OF FAVORABLE EVIDENCE
A. BREACHES OF ATTORNEY‐CLIENT PRIVILEGE

Conflict‐of‐Interest of Parker and Gillen
Defendant STOUFFLET was introduced to and began receiving legal
advice from Criminal Attorney Wilmer “Buddy” Parker as a
precautionary measure advised by attorney Craig Bertchi from Kilpatrick
Stockton. STOUFFLET became a client of the firm in 1997 and Parker
began working for the firm at some point thereafter.

In August 2001, a Search Warrant was issued at STOUFFLET’S business.
At that time, STOUFFLET and his partners were advised to individually
retain counsel. It was agreed that Parker would represent STOUFFLET
and the businesses and Craig Gillen would represent STOUFFLET’S
business partner, RIGGINS. On July 20, 2001, a Joint Defense Agreement
Page 8 of 17

was entered into with attorneys Parker and Gillen. 9

In 2002, before Parker and Gillen became business partners, they
discussed this issue with Riggins and myself. We were specifically told
that if at some point, there was potential of a conflict, they would take
the necessary steps in protecting us.10 At that time, there were no issues
between Riggins and myself, so we had no objections to their
partnership.

Shortly before the Indictment, in 2006, STOUFFLET hired Ed Garland and
Don Samuel as lead counsel. Parker was co‐counsel to Ed Garland and
Don Samuel. 11

Then, in August 2006, STOUFFLET was informed by a 3rd non‐related
party that Riggins was cooperating with the Government.

STOUFFLET inquired and Parker informed him Riggins was cooperating
with the Government….. AFTER it happened.

STOUFFLET was never informed that Riggins was even contemplating
cooperating when in fact at their last Joint Defense meeting we were
asked by Parker, Gillen, and Froelich if there was an Indictment, would
anyone be interested in pleading guilty and cooperate. SOBERT, RIGGINS
and myself, without hesitation, answered “No.”

Parker was aware of his obligation to inform STOUFFLET of a potential
conflict as stated in his July 5 2002 letter. But nothing was done to
protect the defendant’s attorney‐client‐privilege rights.

Parker disregarded his obligation to inform STOUFFLET of any potential

9
The JDA consisted of Parker, Gillen, and Froelich and STOUFFLET and his business partners RIGGINS and SOBERT.
10
07/05/2002 ‐ Letter of Representation: “Prior to my joining Mr. Gillen's firm, he and I met with you and Mr.
Riggins to inform you confidentially of our intention for me to join Mr. Gillen's firm. Presently Mr. Gillen and I are
unaware of any potential conflict between my representation of you and his representation of Mr. Riggins. In the
unlikely event that any conflict should arise between our respective clients, Mr. Gillen and I have assured you and
Mr. Riggins that, if necessary, we would terminate our partnership rather than abandon our respective clients.
Please allow this letter to reaffirm my commitment in that regard."
11
August 24 2007 – While being interviewed about a Search Warrant issued for STOUFFLET servers, Parker stated
he was co‐counsel to Samuel and with the firm of Gillen, Parker, & Withers, LLC.
Page 9 of 17

conflict BEFORE it occurred. Defendant STOUFFLET should have been
presented an opportunity to:

> Waive rights to conflict‐free counsel 12
or
> Parker withdraw to avoid the “divided loyalties” 13

STOUFFLET was never provided an opportunity because the conflict had
already occurred. 14

STOUFFLET made repeated attempts to address this issues and was
provided false information regarding the Conflict‐of‐Interest from Ed
Garland and Don Samuel by telling STOUFFLET there was no conflict
because Garland & Samuel were representing STOUFFLET. As the
evidence reflects, Parker was co‐counsel to Garland & Samuel and
business partners with Gillen.

The majority of the defendant’s case evidence was at the shared offices
of Parker and Gillen which remained there until 2007.

B. Joint Defense Agreement [JDA]
Defense counsels Garland and Samuel’s concealment of the Joint
Defense Agreement

The importance of this agreement is vital to the defendant for the
following reasons:
The JDA reaffirms the protections under the attorney‐client privilege
and substantiates the Conflict‐of‐Interest occurred.

It provides proof that STOUFFLET, his co‐defendants and attorneys
Parker, Gillen, and Froelich believed that they were operating within the

12
So Parker could continue his representation and remain business partnership with Gillen
13
Divided loyalties between Parker and Gillen now that Gillen and his client are Government witnesses
14
A division of an attorney's loyalties creates a conflict of interest. E. g., United States v. Alvarez, 580 F.2d 1251
(1978); United States v. Mahar, 550 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1977); Gravitt v. United States, 523 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.
1975); Castillo v. Estelle,504 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1974);

Page 10 of 17

limits of the law.

It provided additional evidence of STOUFFLET’S “Good‐Faith” belief on
his Reliance on Advice‐of‐Counsel.

Provides protection for work‐product information discussed during
attorney‐client meetings.

Notifications of withdrawal were mandatory, eliminating chances the
defendant would be placed in an unfair position due to a “potential”
conflict of interest.

To date, the defendant was never provided any notifications of
withdrawal by any of its participants.

Shortly before the Indictment was issued and throughout the
proceedings, defendant STOUFFLET has demanded a copy of the Joint
Defense Agreement so he could used as evidence. He requested that
defense counsel Samuel subpoenaed a copy, which he avoided and
ignored. Samuel even told defendant STOUFFLET that it did not exist.

In November 2008, STOUFFLET was provided a copy of the Joint Defense
Agreement through his own efforts during Grievance processes he filed
with the State Bar of Georgia against Parker, Gillen, and Froelich.

Here again, the defendant has good reason to believe that this binding
“legal contract” with the attorney would severely damage the
Government’s case due to the fact that the main charge in the
Indictment, Count 1, is Conspiracy.

C. Recordings of Joint Defense Attorney Froelich
Defense counsels Garland’s and Samuel’s concealment of the recordings
of critical evidence from attorney Jerome Froelich that provides a first‐
hand account of what we were told by the attorneys.

D. State Bar of Georgia Reprimanding of Attorney David Levitt
Due to the recklessness of Levitt’s conduct, it is necessary that the Court
Page 11 of 17

be informed of this information.

7) GOVERNMENTS WILLFUL DECEIT AND UNTRUTHFULNESS
A. Motion in Limine exposes the degree of prosecutors deception 15

B. Governments claims that the controlled substances were issued for
“other than a legitimate medical purpose” had no basis.
STOUFFLET’S business model was unique and unlike other operating
during 2001‐2003. The Governments claim that the “controlled
substances” were prescribed for other than a legitimate purpose is
another misclassification of the facts. The only controlled substances
that were prescribed were for “weight‐loss” and customers had to
provide their weight and answer weight‐loss specific questions to
qualify. Qualifying customers had to meet BMI and other criteria to
qualify. Thousands of orders and customers were denied access to
prescriptions through STOUFFLET’S business.

C. “Doctor/Patient” communications:
The Governments states throughout the proceedings that customers
and doctors had no contact with one another. This is false because
defendant STOUFFLET paid physicians to promptly respond to customer
questions.

A. Dates of alleged criminal acts transpired:
The Indictment states:
26 . “Beginning in or before July 2001, the exact date being unknown,
and continuing until in or about December 2003, in the Northern District
of Georgia and elsewhere, defendants herein, knowingly and
intentionally conspired and agreed together, and with others known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offenses:”

On August 8th 2001, in Federal Court during an R‐41 Hearing,
the same U.S. Attorney’s Office and a federal Judge allowed us to
continue the business

15
View: Motion in Limine deception revealed
Page 12 of 17

D. Changing of company names
The indictment states:
By on or about March 1, 2003 the Defendants moved offices and
renamed the company Virtual Wellness Networks

FALSE: the company was not renamed, Virtual Wellness Networks, INC
was a new entity created in the development and growth of the
business.

E. Georgia Law and National State Medical Boards
The Government misstates medical board policy and regulations as
“State Laws” numerous times throughout the proceedings.

F. Governments Failure to Inquire about Rule Violations
Attorney Buddy Parker represented STOUFFLET and his business
partner Craig Gillen represented co‐defendant Riggins who was a
Government witness.
STOUFFLET was informed weeks after Gillen’s client had began
cooperating with the Government, creating the conflict by the divided
loyalties allowed by Gillen and Parker.
Ironically, the 11th Circuit had recently ruled against Parker and Gillen for
attempting to do somewhat of the same thing in the former Mayor of
Atlanta’s case.
In that case, this same U.S. Attorney’s Office has taken a very strong
position in this matter and moved to have Gillen dismissed from the
case due to the “appearance” of a possible Conflict‐of‐Interest. In this
case, an actual Conflict‐of‐Interest has occurred with the same two
attorneys but the prosecutors have simply ignored it.

8) CONFLICTING POSITIONS WITHIN THE USDOJ EXPOSES VAGUENESS
[RE‐EXAMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESSES VIOLATIONS
NECESSARY]

USDOJ Conflicting Positions

Page 13 of 17

A. U.S. Attorney’s Office ND Georgia vs. DEA

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia: 16
“However, “[t]hat Congress has considered clearer legislation . . .
does not mean that existing laws do not apply. . .” United States v.
Quinones, 536 F.Supp.2d 267, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). “[S]tatutes are
considered by the courts with reference to the circumstances existing
at the time of the passage.

Vs.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, DEA OFFICE OF DIVERSION
CONTROL: 17
“that the current laws were adopted in the 70’s & 80’s, without the
internet in mind, so rules, regs and laws for “online pharmacies”
need to be clearly defined.”

“The current laws used to police and web, are ambiguous and
ineffective, so even lawmakers are demanding clarity.”

“establishment of what a valid doctor‐patient relationship is, what a
valid prescription is. That's very important; puts everybody on notice
that this is what is expected.”

Acts which are made criminal ''must be defined with appropriate
definiteness. 'It is a requirement that criminal laws/statues must be clear
even “to those who enforce it.”

B. U.S. Attorney’s Office ND Georgia vs. U.S. Attorney’s Office SD of
Florida
The prosecution of a “online pharmacy” case in the 11th Circuit,
United States vs. Hernandez, Case No: 08‐60027:

The U.S. Attorney’s Office SD of Florida dismissed all charges against

16
“GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA”
17
June 24 2008, JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEA
Page 14 of 17

every defendants including vacating the guilty pleas because there
was an advice of counsel defense.
Vs.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia entered a
Motion in Limine to deny defendant the advice of counsel defense by
stating that it was a “matter of law.”

C. U.S. Attorney’s Office ND of Georgia:
[Compromising and shifting of statements previous statements]

Government’s Ominbus Response Motion18
[03/14/2007] “Had Congress believed at any time in the nearly 30
years since the Supreme Court decided Moore that the Supreme
Court’s interpretation was incorrect, it could have amended the CSA
or demanded additional regulations be promulgated as it did with
regard to the treatment of narcotics addicts.
Vs
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA 19
[03/24/2009] “The fact that the Congress has passed a bill which
would amend the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to more explicitly
prohibit the conduct at issue in this case does not invalidate
prosecutions under the then‐existing provisions of the CSA nor does it
render the plea involuntary.”

D. U.S. Attorneys Office ND Georgia vs. U.S. Attorney David Nahmias

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia
Dismissed criminal charges against the doctors
Vs.
United States Attorney David E. Nahmias
“These defendants, particularly the doctors charged, allegedly chose
Internet profits over legal and ethical medical practices.”

18
Document 149
19
DOCUMENT 19
Page 15 of 17

E. DEA GUIDELINES vs LAW
DEA “Policy” as Law

2001 DEA Internet Prescribing Guidelines
A recent 11th circuit ruling in U.S. vs. Hernandez denied the
Government from using a 2001 DEA “policy” 20 as Law. In
STOUFFLET’S case, the Government has used this same policy and
presented it as LAW, stating that this policy made the conduct illegal
as stated in numerous Motions, statements, PSR, etc…etc…
Vs.
STOUFFLET’S PSR specifically states:
THE INVESTIGATION
(32) “The Government clarified that the DEA circular made clear that
Internet websites that provided controlled substances on the basis of
on‐line questionnaires were illegal.”

GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE
Since it has now been determine that a DEA Policy does not suffice as
LAW, the Government has failed to provide any notice that obtaining
controlled substances via the internet is illegal.

44 COUNTS OF MONEY LAUNDERING AND 3 COUNTS OF
MISBRANDING OF DRUGS ARE UNFOUNDED
MONEY LAUNDERING
Government Agents have met with STOUFFLET’S CPA’s and accountants
who handled all of STOUFFLET’S financial transactions and informed
them that there was never an attempt to hide or conceal any of the
funds or proceeds at any time.
Misbranding
Counts 49, 50 & 51 the defendant has been charged with Misbranding
Drugs used in Interstate Commerce. No physician’s or pharmacies were
name or charged in these Counts. The defendant did not issues any
prescriptions or have possession of any of the controlled substances or
any prescription medications at anytime, making it impossible for him to
cause “Misbranding”

20
The 2001 Federal Register provided guidelines regarding the ordering of controlled substances over the internet.
Page 16 of 17

CONCLUSION:
The prosecutors are required to ensure that the information
“adequately reflects the nature and extent of the criminal conduct
involved.” As reflected throughout this document, the U.S. Attorney’s
Office has elected to ignore that responsibility and intentionally misstate
or exclude relevant facts.

These abuses described herein should be of great concern for all
citizens. What has been done in my case over the past 3 years is cannot
be changes so I write this to create awareness in hopes that checks and
balances are put into place so these abuses do not occur in the future.
The authority given to the prosecutors that allow them to conduct
themselves as they choose with no accountability must be brought to
light and confronted.

Every statement made within this document is true. The manner in
which the U.S. Attorney’s Office has conducted themselves in this case
causes me great concern because these are the same individuals that
have been entrusted to ensuring “JUSTICE FOR ALL.”……….
Page 17 of 17

Prosecutors Professional Misconduct and Fabrication of The Facts

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Prosecutors Professional Misconduct and Fabrication of The Facts

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PROSECUTORS FABRICATION OF THE FACTS

AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Anda mungkin juga menyukai