US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

POST-INDICTMENT

1. 2006 [FIRST QUARTER] LOOMING INDICTMENT

Discussions regarding a possible indictment turned serious in early 2006.
Prior to this, Stoufflet was aware the government was investigating the
business but remained confident as he remained in compliance with the
laws and followed all legal advice.

2. SPRING 2006: LAWYERS ENGAGE IN GUILTY PLEA DISCUSSIONS

Attorneys Buddy Parker, Craig Gillen, and Jerome Froelich inform Stoufflet
and business partners the indictment was definite. Strong suggestions
began and became frequent that would require pleading guilty. Stoufflet
and partners refused.

• The lawyers advising Stoufflet to plead guilty are the same lawyers
Stoufflet paid $1.5 M in 2002 to keep Stoufflet out of harm’s way

• The very SAME lawyers strongly advising Stoufflet to plead

“GUILTY” are on record in November 2003 stating the business was
“not illegal.”

3. STOUFFLET HIRES NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL

Stoufflet hires prominent criminal “trial” attorneys, Ed Garland and Don
Samuel. Garland and Samuel considered “Super Lawyers” and have
represented stars such as rapper T.I., Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis, etc….

4. GARLAND AND SAMUEL AGREE TO EXPOSE LAWYERS INVOLVEMENT

Prior to retaining Garland and Samuel, Stoufflet provided volumes of
documents revealing the lawyer’s involvement in Stoufflet business.

5. STOUFFLET SPENDS REMAINING FUNDS IN RETAINING GARLAND AND

SAMUEL
Legal services require Stoufflet spend all remaining funds in addition to a
$100,000.00 property deed from the equity in his condominium.

Page 1 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

6. AUGUST 8, 2006: STOUFFLET, SOBERT, AND FIVE DOCTORS INDICTED FOR

FEDERAL DRUG DEALING 1
The U.S. Attorney’s Office charged Stoufflet under “federal drug dealing”
statues.” Congress drafted such laws to prosecute “Drug Cartels” and “Drug
Kingpins” who traffic and distribute cocaine and heroin.

7. 51-COUNT CRIMINAL INDICTMENT CHARGED STOUFFLET WITH

 Conspiracy to Violate the Control Substance Act
 Drug Distribution
 44 Counts of Money Laundering
 Misbranding of Drugs

8. GOVERNMENT FABRICATES EVIDENCE TO FIT THE CRIME

There is no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of an attempt to hide or
conceal any funds, and no evidence Stoufflet caused any drugs to be
misbranded.

 Stoufflet made full discloser of all matters to numerous

independent lawyers, eliminating any theory of conspiracy
unless he conspired with his lawyers.
 Stoufflet, under direction of attorney Buddy Parker and Craig
Gillen, hired a forensic accountant, former IRS agent who
performed an independent financial investigation and found
no wrongdoing, eliminating any money laundering.

1
Stoufflets’ long-time friend and business partner Erin Riggins entered into a guilty plea to avoid being “officially”
indicted. He told Stoufflet and Sobert he had no intentions on pleaded guilty. Riggins and his attorney Craig
Gillen failed to withdraw from the Joint Defense Agreement. (written notification mandatory)

Page 2 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

9. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

ATTORNEYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A
“CLEAR AND CONCISE ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS” TO FORMULATE A
“FACTUAL BASIS” FOR:
 INDICTMENTS
 CHARGING AND CONVICTIONS
 IMPOSING SENTENCES

Omissions of “inextricably intertwined” participants fail to provide a “clear

and concise” account of the events for an indictment. Such exclusion
creates the impossibility to form a “factual basis” needed for an
Indictment, Guilty Pleas, and Sentencing.

 Lawyers and pharmacies who furthered the acts were omitted

10. EXPOSURE TO 292‐365 MONTHS (24‐30 YEARS) INCARCERATION

Stoufflets’ lawyers presented options to plead guilty to avoid a catastrophic
sentence if Stoufflet was found guilty at trial. Stoufflet refused to enter into
a plea agreement and insisted on proceeding to trial.

11. JULY 11, 2007: GOVERNMENT REQUEST DISCOVERY TO PREPARE FOR

STOUFFLETS “ADVICE-OF-COUNSEL” DEFENSE
“GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF RELIANCE ON ADVICE OF
COUNSEL” [Doc 183]
Motion supports the government’s position that Stoufflet would legally
assert the “advice of counsel” defense and severely minimizes arguing
admissibility at a later date.

Page 3 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

12. JULY 12, 2007: DEFENSE COUNSEL ENGAGES IN INAPPROPRIATE

DISCUSSIONS WITH GOVERNMENT, COMPROMISING AND BETRAYING
STOUFFLET 2
[SAMUEL to AUSA SOMMERFELD]
Email to the prosecutors, Stoufflet ‘s attorney stated:
“As I am sure you are well aware, there is some really good ally-
client stuff and some REALLY BAD atly-c1ient stuff and we are simply
incapable of making a decision about which way to go”

13. NOVEMBER 9 2007: DEFENSE COUNSEL INAPPROPRIATE DISCUSSIONS

WITH GOVERNMENT
[SAMUEL to AUSA SOMMERFELD]
In an email to the prosecutors, Stoufflet ‘s attorney stated:
“I know that Chris will be delighted to debrief with you (though you
will need to endure hours of tirades about how mad he is at the
lawyers to whom he gave a fortune, in return for which he acquired
an indictment). But your patience would be appreciated.”

14. NOVEMBER 6, 2007: STOUFFLET WAIVES “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE”

AND DISCLOSES “WORK-PRODUCT” TO GOVERNMENT
Prerequisite to assert the “advice-of-counsel” defense is waiver and
disclosure of legal “work-related -product” to the government.

15. NOVEMBER 2007: CO-DEFENDANT SOBERT PLEADS GUILTY

16. NOVEMBER 7, 2007: SAMUEL INFORMS STOUFFLET THE LAWYERS ARE

GOING TO DENY EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT IN WRITING
“What also concerns me is that all the lawyers will deny ever telling
you anything other than what is in the documents and emails.” .

2
Stoufflet is not made aware of these discussion until July 2009

Page 4 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

17. NOVEMBER 10, 2007: SAMUEL CONFIRMS THE LAWYERS POORLY

ADVISED STOUFFLET
“My advice to you doesn't change: I think you were poorly advised at
the time (of course, I am saying that with the benefit of hindsight),
but that the fact that the lawyers themselves will not say that they
gave you a seal of approval (and, in fact, will testify that they
strenuously cautioned you that this was potentially criminal
behavior), the fact that your two business partners are going to come
to court and say that they pled guilty, and the risk that the jury will
convict you, makes a trial extremely dangerous.”

18. NOVEMBER 12, 2007, STOUFFLETS’ DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT FALSE

DETERRENTS TO STOUFFLET AND INDUCE GUILTY PLEA 3
[EMAIL SAMUEL TO GARLAND]

“Please bear in mind that Chris blames all his problems on lawyers:
Buddy, Craig, Jerry, Arent Fox, Kilpatrick Stockton, Mel Hewitt, Darin
Traub, etc. If he does not receive a very clear message from us about
the dangers of trial; the advantages of this plea; the looming
deadline, etc, he will simply add us to his list of lawyers who failed
to properly communicate with him. I propose that we put in writing,
immediately, our advice, the deadline, the dangers of trial, including
the difficulty (or impossibility) of mounting an advice of counsel
defense where the lawyers are going to line up, one after the other,
and deny having provided any advice to authorize the conduct, and
get him to sign this document. “
“Otherwise, we will simply be added to the list of lawyers who don't
give him clear and unmistakable advice.”

The law allows a defendant “relief” if a defendant can prove that the legal
advice he received was faulty and led defendant to violate the law.
Stoufflet’s attorneys failed to seek any “relief” for him.

3
Stoufflet is not made aware of these discussion until July 2009

Page 5 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

19. FEBRUARY 2, 2008: SAMUEL INFORMS STOUFFLET THE LAWYERS WILL BE

UNSUPPORTIVE
Ed and I both the think the risk is enormous and given the lack of
support from the lawyers, who will NOT say that they told you “This is
legal conduct” –that you are relying, instead, on your belief, that you
were “entitled” to be told in unequivocal language that the business
was illegal. There is no law, that I am aware of, that says you are
“entitled” to be told in unequivocal language that your behavior is
illegal before you can be prosecuted for a crime”.

20. FEBRUARY 21, 2008: PARKER REAFFIRMS THE BUSINESS “NOT ILLEGAL”
SAMUEL’S PRE-TRIAL INTERVIEW OF PARKER
 “Buddy says that everybody realized the regulatory issues, but
nobody thought it was a federal crime of drug dealing.”

21. FEBRUARY 28, 2008: GOVERNMENT CHANGES LEGAL THEORIES

10 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
 GOVERNMENT’S MOTION in LIMINE to EXCLUDE GOOD FAITH
DEFENSES, INCLUDING ADVICE OF COUNSEL [Doc 217]
 Government declared as “matter of law” the “advice-of-
counsel” was not an available defense to defendant Stoufflet
because crimes were general intent, not specific intent.
 Government issues 72 hour deadline to accept plea terms.
 Government’s newfound legal position is subsequent to
approx imately4 month discovery
 Stoufflet’s defense counsel fails to inform the Court of the
governments undermining of “fundamental fairness” during
discovery.

22. MARCH 4, 2008: STOUFFLET PLEAS GUILTY

Stoufflet is rushed into Federal Court to plead guilty 2 business days after
the government’s Motion to bar Stoufflets from utilizing the legal advice.

Page 6 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

23. MARCH 7, 2008: COURT RULES IN STOUFFLET’S FAVOR THREE DAYS AFTER
PLEADING GUILTY
 Honorable Clarence Cooper issued Order [Doc 225] correctly
classifying the crimes as “specific intent” crimes, to which
"advice of counsel" defense is allowed
 Defense counsel makes no attempt to inform Stoufflet of the
critical and favorable ruling
 Defense counsel provided false and misleading statements on
several occasions when Stoufflet inquires about the ruling

24. MARCH 2008: STOUFFLET BEGINS EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICES

 Meets with the prosecutors
 Terminates Garland and Samuel representation
 New attorney appointed by the Court
 Seeks withdrawal from the guilty plea

25. AUGUST 1, 2008: SAMUEL CONFIRMS THE LEGAL ADVICE STOUFFLET

RECEIVED WAS INSUFFICIENT AND INACCURATE
 The issue is not whether the lawyer’s gave you insufficient or
inaccurate advice. WE ALL AGREE THAT THAT HAPPENED.

26. SEPTEMBER 2008: STOUFFLET FILES BAR GRIEVANCES WITH THE STATE
BAR OF GEORGIA AGAINST ATTORNEYS PARKER, GILLEN, FROELICH,
LEVITT

27. OCTOBER 2008: PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED INTO EFFECT “THE
ONLINE PHARMACY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2008”
Effective April 15, 2009
 New Law amends the chief provisions Stoufflet has been
charged for violating

28. DECEMBER 5, 2008

 ATTORNEY LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN APPOINTED AS
STOUFFLET COUNSEL

Page 7 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

29. APRIL 15, 2009

 NEW FEDERAL LAW “THE RYAN HAIGHT ACT” AKA “THE
ONLINE PHARMACY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2008”
BECOMES EFFECTIVE
THIS NEW LAW “OUTLAWS” THE VERY ACTS STOUFFLET IS
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING

30. FEBRUARY 20, 2009

 “MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA OF DEFENDANT
CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET”

31. MARCH 15, 2009

 AMENDED MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA

32. MAY 20, 2009

 HEARING TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA

33. STATE BAR INFORMS STOUFFLET THAT THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST PARKER
AND GILLEN’S IS HAS ESCALATED TO THE DISCIPLINARY REVIEW

34. SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

 HEARING TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA CONTINUED

35. SEPTEMBER 23, 2009

 FINAL HEARING TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
 MOTION DENIED

36. OCTOBER 29, 2009

 SCHEDULED SENTENCING POSTPONED
 ATTORNEY ZIMMERMAN WITHDRAWS AS COUNSEL
 MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILL APPOINT ANOTHER COUNSEL

Page 8 of 9
US v STOUFFLET | TIMELINE 2006-2009

OCTOBER 2009: STOUFFLET SENDS “CONSPIRACY AND COVER-UP” LETTER TO

DEFENSE COUNSEL ZIMMERMAN

 ZIMMERMAN RESPONSE “HE IS NOT PART OF THOSE CRIMES” AND SEEKS

IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL

OCTOBER 25 2006: STOUFFLET SENDS LETTER AND SUPPORTING

DOCUMENTATION TO THE COURT AND THE GOVERNMENT

 SUMMARY: Thousands of pages of evidence from the lawyers have been

and remain available today. This powerful evidence reveals that all relevant
issues were disclosed and the lawyers had full knowledge of the business.
With that knowledge, the lawyers became more involved, crafting the legal
framework, including the legal contracts that were utilized in every
transaction of the alleged illegal business.

 These legal invoices implicate the lawyers in the offense Stoufflet is charged
with , much like DNA at a crime scene. It is concrete evidence that the
lawyers unequivocally “furthered” the alleged illegal business. According to
the Rule of Law, these acts implicate the lawyers as criminal accomplices.
There s is strong evidence to support the lawyers as “aiders and abettors”
or as “co-conspirators.”

 Federal prosecutors have manipulated the facts in this case to minimize the
lawyers’ involvement. Over the past three years the prosecutors’ conduct
has grown more outrageous, it has escalated to the point where AUSA
Sommerfeld and Chartash have boastfully argued in Federal Court that the
legal advice Stoufflet received is irrelevant.

Stoufflet strongly believes that an investigation into these facts will reveal that
the prosecutors engaged in “overt acts” to conceal the involvement of the
lawyers.

Page 9 of 9