July 30th 2009 

 
 
Lawrence J. Zimmerman 
1800 Peachtree St. NW 
Suite 300 
Atlanta, GA. 30309 
 
 
RE: REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFECTIVE 
PEROFRMANCE OF FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL AND OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL & RULE VIOLATIONS  
 
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1:08‐CR‐00082   
 
Dear Mr. Zimmerman: 
 
Since you have been appointed to my case, you have been encompassed 
with what seems to be an insurmountable task of untangling the truth from 
a web of deception created by both prosecutors and masters of the 
criminal justice system, Ed Garland and Don Samuel.  
 
With all of your efforts placed on finding legal grounds to seek withdrawal 
from a wrongfully obtained Guilty Plea, I believe the many critical issues in 
my case have been overlooked.  
 
It is as if a crime scene is being investigated for murder, and all 
efforts are placed in determining whether digging a ditch on public 
land was a crime, overlooking the corpse in that ditch……. 
 
It is the Constitutional Sixth Amendment Right and your duty to thoroughly 
investigate my case.  
 
“In providing effective assistance of counsel consistent with the Sixth 
Amendment, defense counsel has an independent duty to investigate 
the case”.  
 

1
Since my former defense counsel has deliberately failed to investigate and 
take remedially action necessary to correct the injustice, I believed you 
would take the steps necessary to seek justice in my case. 
 
Georgia has adopted the rule that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 
must be raised at “the earliest practicable moment” and seven months 
have now passed and yet you have turned a blind‐eye to all the 
wrongdoing.  
 
I have spent much time reviewing The State Bar of Georgia’s Rules of 
Professional Conduct and the ABA Rules for Reporting Professional 
Misconduct and the need for swift action on your behalf is critical and I 
believe rightfully justified.  
 
The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of 
counsel because it envisions counsel's playing a role that is critical to 
the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An 
accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or 
appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair. 
 
My intentions are not to offend you in any way, but I must express my 
concerns to you. Many of the issues I have deemed problematic for years 
have yet to be addressed.  You are the attorney, not me, and I believe you 
should be the one to aggressively pursue each issue, not me. 
 
I believe you, more than anyone else, should be the most knowledgeable in 
my case and armed with the facts. It evident you cannot rely on Garland 
and Samuel to provide you with the facts of my case, as they have already 
misrepresented many important issues, including the blatant and obvious 
Conflict‐of‐Interest issue that is now under investigation.   
 
Please also remember I requested that Judge Cooper perform a Formal 
Inquiry into some of these very issues. It can be assumed that if my issues 
were valid, you would have already addressed them by now with the Court. 
The fact that the issues have not been addressed allows for the m 
misconception that upon your acceptance of the case, you performed a 
thorough review of the issue and they have no merit. We know this not to 

2
 U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUT, ETHICS &

RULE VIOLATIONS  
________________________________________________ 
UNDERMINDING FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS  
Criminal Case 1:06‐CR‐337 & 1:08‐CR‐082‐1‐CC 
United States of America 
vs.  
Chris Stoufflet  
 
1. FAILURE TO PRODUCE EXCULLPATORY EVIDENCE, SUBSTANTIALLY 
INFLUENCED THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION TO INDICT:   1
Since the onset of the allegations, Stoufflet has proclaimed that 
prosecutors have failed to provide a “clear and concise” account of 
the events.   
 
The evidence establishes that lawyers and pharmacists were 
instrumental, essential key‐elements, involved in each transaction of 
the indictment but excluded in the Government’s description of the 
“Manner and Means”.   
 
The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s decision to criminally charge only specific 
individuals is opposed to the facts.    This issue undermines the 
“fundamental fairness” of the proceedings. As explained below, the 
exclusion of the lawyers and the pharmacies are paramount and 
allow prosecutors to gain an unfair advantage by misrepresenting the 
facts.  
 
Defendant Stoufflet 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 
highly renowned and well‐esteemed firms in the legal profession; 

1
 See attached graphic diagram of participating parties  

1
 law‐firms such as Seyfarth Shaw, LLP; Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP; and 
Arent Fox, LLC. This was in addition to fulltime, in‐house legal 
counsel.   
 
Most importantly, as a preemptive measure to remain compliant and 
within the bounds of the law, Stoufflet obtained legal services from 
expert criminal attorneys, three former Assistant U.S. Attorneys; 
Buddy Parker, Craig Gillen and Jerry Froelich. During the timeframe 
the Government alleges the illegal conduct transpired, over 40 
attorneys were involved in providing legal advice. 
 
The evidence confirms that the lawyers believed the conduct was 
legal. It is also important to note that at no time did any attorney 
withdraw due to the business being too “risky”. The attorneys have 
stated that everyone recognized there were “regulations, but no one 
believed it was a Federal Crime of Drug Dealing”. 
 
“IF”, as the Government alleges, a crime was committed, and "no 
one is above the law", how is it possible for the lawyers and the 
pharmacist to escape prosecution?  
 
A. The lawyers crafted the legal framework in which each 
alleged illegal transactions occurred.  
 
B. The pharmacies 2  possessed, dispensed, and distributed 
the alleged illegal “controlled substances”. 
  
There is good reason to show that the decision not to include the 
lawyers and the pharmacists was an intentional, strategic decision by 
prosecutors for the following reasons:  
  
• Prosecutor’s ability to utilize charges of “Conspiracy” in 
the Indictment.  Since “conspiring with a lawyer” defies 
logic and common sense thinking, prosecutors simply 
have excluded the lawyer’s involvement as if they never 

2
Licensed by State Pharmacy Boards and the Attorney General under the DEA

2
 existed. 
 
• Prosecutors repeated efforts to remove appearances of 
a “legally conducted business” is evident and increases 
throughout the proceedings, until the point in which 
they deny Stoufflet the ability to rely on the legal advice 
he received.   
• The legal agreements used in every transaction were 
supplied by premier law firms. Convincing a jury that 
these firms knowingly provided contracts for the 
furtherance of criminal conduct becomes problematic 
for the prosecutors.   
• Engaging in “legal contracts” demonstrates “willfulness” 
to comply with the law and the belief that everyone’s 
conduct was legal.  
• The Pharmacies that possessed, distributed, and 
dispensed the alleged illegal weight loss pills were 
operating under the provisions defined in the legal 
contract.  
• To minimize exposure of the prosecutor’s 
misrepresentations, they avoid having to explain how 
numerous separate entities, especially lawyers, didn’t 
have any knowledge they were engaging in illegal 
conduct.  
• Avoidance of the fact that everyone believed the 
business to be operating legally, in compliance with the 
terms of their contract provide motive for the exclusion 
of these key components.  
  
It is understood that when seeking an Indictment, prosecutors are 
not required to present evidence on behalf of the accused, but there 
is an implied understanding that prosecutors are truthful and 
accurately describe the acts that include the “essential elements” of 
what transpired. In this case, the prosecutors have deliberately 
manipulated the facts, leaving out the “essential elements” in order 
to fit the crime.  
 

3
 Due to the fact that the Indictment miserably fails to depict anything 
near what the facts reflect, there is sufficient reason to believe that 
the prosecutors engaged in deception during Grand Jury 
proceedings.  
 
If the purpose of a "Grand Jury" is to determine if a case merits going 
to trial, how can the jurors make a "fitting decision" if they are not 
informed of accurate circumstances?  

Counts 2‐4 of the Indictment
COUNT DEFENDNATS DATE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
DISTRIBUTED AND DISPENSED
2 Christopher Stoufflet,   09/16/2003 Received 30 doses of Phentermine 
Troy Sobert, 37.5 mg, prescribed by SMITH, M.D. 
Andre Smith, MD Andre D. smith, M.D. dispensed to 
R.A.K. Atlanta, GA
3 Christopher Stoufflet,   10/01/2003 Received 30 doses of Phentermine 
Troy Sobert, 37.5 mg, prescribed by SMITH, M.D. 
Valdimr Andreis, MD Andre D. smith, M.D. dispensed to 
K.A. Atlanta, GA
4 Christopher Stoufflet,   10/17/2003 Received 30 doses of Adipex 37.5 
Troy Sobert, mg, prescribed by SMITH, M.D. 
Andre Smith, MD Andre D. smith, M.D. dispensed to 
R.A.K. Atlanta, GA
  
MISREPRESENTATIONS: 
A. R.A.K. and K.A. entered into a binding legal agreement during 
these transactions.  
B. This legal agreement was crafted by the lawyers and used in 
these transactions. 
C. These “controlled substance” were “distributed and 
dispensed” by licensed pharmacies.  
D. Licensed medical doctors authorized and issued valid 
prescriptions for these “controlled substances”. 
E. The doctors and the pharmacists who “distributed and 
dispensed” these “controlled substances” in Counts 2,3, & 4 
were engaged in binding legal contracts.  
F. These legal agreements were drafted by the attorneys.  

4
  
Additional Facts  
• The Government utilizes the following law as the basis of this 
prosecution [specifically addresses the pharmacy agents}  
  
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 
substances.  
  
Prosecutors have dismantled this law to sidestep the pharmacy’s 
involvement so the alleged acts “fit the crime.”  
 
• Conflicting Policies: During 2001‐2003, Stoufflet was regularly being 
informed of unannounced, on‐site inspections at the pharmacies by 
the DEA and State Pharmacy’s Boards. The 2006 U.S. Attorney’s 
Office declaration that the business was illegal is contradictory to 
these onsite inspections by the DEA which found the pharmacies to 
be in compliance. 
 
Based on the cumulative effect of the various acts of prosecutorial 
misconduct, it is highly unlikely that the grand jury's decision to indict 
was free from the substantial influence of this misconduct. 
  

5
2. WITHHOLDING NEW FAVORABLE EVIDENCE  
Verification of Customer Information: The Government has 
emphasized throughout the proceedings that customers could order 
“controlled substances” without any verification being performed.   
 
The indictment specifically states: 
“No one associated with the defendants checked the accuracy of the 
information customers provided, including their identities, ages, and 
qualifying medical conditions, such as weight.” 
 
The prosecutor’s intentionally false misrepresentations are repeated 
in the Criminal Indictment, numerous MOTIONS, the PSR, and in 
open court during the trial of co‐defendant Dr. Smith.  
 
Stoufflet met with AUSA Sommerfeld and Chartash and presented 
them evidence that customer information was being verified.  
 
August 4th 2008: during an in person meeting with AUSA 
Sommerfeld and AUSA Chartash, Stoufflet informed them about the 
customer verification policies, procedures and that it was a vital 
important part of everyday business.  
 
August 20 2008: Stoufflet sent an email to his attorney, Don Samuel 
to forward to prosecutors that provided proof of the verifications. 
 
September 9 2008: Stoufflet exchanges emails with AUSA 
Sommerfeld and AUSA Chartash and discussed the customer’s 
verification issues again.  
 
September 19 2008: Stoufflet meet with AUSA Sommerfeld, 
Chartash, and FDA Special Agent Robert Kuykendall and presented a 
large amount of evidence of customer verifications.  
 
October 20 2008: Having proof of this new information, the 
Government submitted objections to the Pre‐sentence Report and 
yet failed to make any corrections to the incorrect information 
regarding the customer verification. 

6
  
 
 
 
October 30 2008: Don Samuel submitted objections to Stoufflet's PSR 
that confirmed the “customer verification” process.  
  
To date, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of 
Georgia has withheld this new favorable evidence from the co‐
defendants, Court and to Stoufflet. 
  
3. FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS  
A. “BAIT AND SWITCH” TACTICS USED TO GAIN THE UNFAIR 
ADVANTAGE TO STOUFFLET’S DEFENSE 
 
On July 11, 2007, the Government requested Stoufflet formally 
declare if he was asserting “Advice‐of‐Counsel” defense in 
“GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF RELIANCE ON 
ADVICE OF COUNSEL (Doc #183)  
 
In asserting the Advice‐of‐Counsel defense, Stoufflet was 
required to waive Attorney‐Client‐Privilege and disclose all 
attorney‐client work product [all his evidence] to the 
Government.  (This was done in November of 2007). 
  
The MOTION specifically stated: 
“If an advice of counsel defense is first asserted at trial, thus  
waiving defendant’s attorney‐client privilege, the government 
will then be in the difficult and unfair position of being forced 
to respond in the middle of the trial to a large quantity of new 
information. If he is unwilling to so notify the government, then 
he should be precluded from raising such a defense at trial.” 
 
This information affirmed Stoufflet’s right to use the advice of 
counsel defense if he complied with the Government’s 
request.  
 

7
  
 
 
After reviewing all of Stoufflet’s evidence for approximately 7 
months, the Government conveniently waited until ten days 
before trial to deny Stoufflet the ability to use the Advice‐of–
Counsel defense; Motion in Limine (Doc. #217) on Thursday, 
February 28, 2008. 
 
The MOTION specifically stated: 
“As discussed further below, good faith defenses, such as the 
advice‐of‐counsel, only apply to crimes requiring a specific 
intent to break the law. As to the general intent crimes charged 
in the Indictment, such defenses are irrelevant as a matter of 
law”. 
 
The following day, Friday, February 29th 2008, Stoufflet was 
informed of the government’s position and that they would 
remove the plea option on Monday, March 3rd 2009, 
intentionally expiring before the Court would rule. Stoufflet 
was given approximately 72 hours to make a life changing 
decision, placing him in unnecessary state of duress.  
 
By obtaining Stoufflet’s evidence and then, in a sudden‐about‐
face, barring Stoufflet from using it, the government armed 
themselves with the “Shield and the Sword,” (which in 
according to their position in Motion 183 was not allowed) 
giving them the unfair advantage. By forbidding Stoufflet from 
using his only viable defense, the defendant was left 
defenseless. 
 
B. VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA  
Capitalizing on this window of opportunity, the Government 
rushed Stoufflet into the courtroom the following morning, 
Tuesday, March 4th 2009 so he could enter a false guilty plea.  
 
 

8
  
 
It was under those circumstances that Stoufflet plead Guilty. 
Since the plea was not voluntary, and in light of the Judge’s 
Order of 3/7/2008 [Doc 225], Stoufflet has moved to withdraw 
the guilty plea.  
 
There were numerous discussions with Stoufflet's defense 
counsel about entering a Guilty Plea, but Stoufflet insisted on 
going trial even though losing at trial subjected him 
incarceration for 292‐365 months (24‐30 years). Knowing this 
fact, the Government took another approach and maneuvered 
themselves into an overpowering position as described above 
to “railroad” Stoufflet into pleading guilty falsely. The 
“Voluntariness” procedures used in obtaining this Guilty Plea 
engaged in by AUSA Sommerfeld and Chartash warrant review.  
 
Three days after entering into the Guilty plea agreement, on 
March 7, 2008, the Honorable Clarence Cooper issued an 
Order denying the Government’s Motion in Limine, allowing 
Stoufflet to assert Advice of Counsel as his defense. The order 
pointed out that the prosecutors had misclassified the alleged 
crimes as general intent crimes.  The Judge's order correctly 
classified the alleged crimes as specific intent crimes to which 
advice of counsel defense is appropriate. 
 
Stoufflet found out about this ruling months later, on his own, 
while researching issues relevant to his case.  Neither 
prosecutors nor defense counsel had informed him of this 
Order which ruled in his favor. 
 
C. PROSECUTORS REMEDY FOR THIER MISAPPLICATION OF 
LAW; NEW, ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE  
Stoufflet has now been threatened with additional charges of 
Obstruction of Justice if he seeks to withdraw the Guilty Plea.   
 

9
  
 
  
4.  GOVERNMENT’S BAD FAITH EFFORTS  
Prosecutors were fully aware that Stoufflet had met all of the 
requirements necessary to assert an "Advice of Counsel" defense.  
Still, they sought to deny Stoufflet the ability to rely on the legal 
advice he received while operating the alleged illegal business. 
 The facts reflect that: 
 
Before taking any action with regard to the alleged offense: 
A. he consulted in good faith an attorney  
B. whom he considered competent,  
C. made a full and accurate report to his attorney of all 
material facts of which he had the means of knowledge, 
D. and then acted strictly in accordance with the advice 
given to him by his attorney. 
 
In a bad faith attempt to deny Stoufflet Due Process, on the eve 
before trial, prosecutors proclaimed as a matter of law, Advice‐of‐
Counsel is not an available defense and the legal advice Stoufflet 
received is erroneous, and irrelevant.  
 
The legal advice Stoufflet received is direct first‐hand 
evidenced and the prosecutor’s efforts to preclude such critical 
evidence should be investigated due to the fact that this is not 
some accidental harmless error but violation of his 
Constitutional Rights and therefore should not be overlooked.  
 
In order to “fit the crime”, prosecutors constructed this case to 
charge Stoufflet with violations of 841(a), 843(b) in which they 
claim an “Advice‐of‐Counsel” defense does not apply.  
To mislead the Court, prosecutors have failed to cite one case 
similar in having the “essential elements” of this case.  
  
 

10
 
 
5.  USAGE OF DECEPTIVE CASE LAW  
A quick review of the facts will provide evidence that the prosecutors 
have cited case after case trying to relate the issues in this case to 
past cases.  The cases the prosecutors have cited have set 
precedence but fail to have essential elements or similarities.  None 
of the cases referenced had direct legal participation and in‐depth 
involvement as that in Stoufflet's case.  
 
A re‐examination of the facts displays the prosecution’s broad 
attempt in misrepresenting the core facts of this case, failing to 
provide any well‐established case law. The efforts reveal the large 
degree of the deception the prosecutors have engaged in.   
 
One would assume that “Fairness” in the proceedings would apply to 
both parties. In doing so, it is reasonable to believe that declarations 
made by the Government can be fairly applied.  In doing so, the 
standard set‐forth by Government should be applied in this case: 
 
Government's Motion, [Doc 183]   
"If he is unwilling to so notify the government, then he should 
be precluded from raising such a defense at trial". 
 
But the Government did exactly this to Stoufflet by their 
“sudden‐about‐face” to deny him to use his legal advice.  
 
6.  ESTOPPEL DEFENSES 
A. ENTRAPMENT BY ESTOPPEL: 
Jan 2001: At the request of defendant STOUFFLET, the 
FDA Office of Criminal Investigations investigated the 
defendant's business and found no wrongdoing.  
Stoufflet then requested future guidance. August 2001: 
Federal Judge Scoefeild ordered the Government to 
return STOUFFLET’S business equipment so he could 
continue conducting business.   AUSA Stroppli had no 
objection to this and agreed to return the defendant's 

11
 business equipment. At no time was the defendant 
provided any type of "Notice" that the 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. 
 
B. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL: prevents asserting claims, 
defenses, or positions that are inconsistent with claims, 
defenses, or positions that were asserted in a prior 
proceeding. 
 
As discussed in detail above in ISSUE #3 Voluntariness 
of the Plea, the Government maintained the position 
argued in Motion 183 throughout the proceedings but 
ten days before trial, conveniently acquired a newfound 
position argued in Motion 217.   
 
The Government’s swift changing of positions resulted in 
their ability to unfairly overload their arsenal and disarm 
and impair defendant Stoufflet.  
  
7.  NEW EVIDENCE DEEMS VOID FOR VAGUENESS STATUES RELEVANT 
The criteria needed for Void for Vagueness are appropriate here and 
should be applied for the following reasons.  
 
JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,  
OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT 
ADMINSTRATION 3 
  
“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.” 
  

3
On June 24, 2008 : HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM 
AND HOMELAND SECURITY HOLDS A HEARING ON ONLINE PHARMACIES AND INTERNET DRUG ABUSE

12
 “The current laws used to police and web, are ambiguous and 
ineffective, so even lawmakers are demanding clarity.” 
 
The chief provisions of the very statue Stoufflet was charged of 
violating, 21 USC Section 841 was amended.  
 
8. EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT THAT PENDING PRE‐RYAN‐HAIGHT 
INTERNET PHARMACY ACT ARE INVALID    
 
A number of quotes from the new Rule are referenced below: 
 
The law becomes effective April 13, 2009.  Thus, as of April 13, 
2009, it will be illegal under federal law to ‘deliver, distribute, 
or dispense a controlled substance by means of the Internet, 
except as authorized [by the CSA]‘ or to aid or abet such 
activity. 
 
The Ryan Haight Act . . . makes it unlawful to “knowingly or 
intentionally deliver, distribute, or dispense a controlled 
substance by means of the Internet, except as authorized by 
the [the Act]. 
 
Here, the Act makes it unambiguous that, except in limited 
and specified circumstances, it is a per se violation of the CSA 
for a practitioner to issue a prescription for a controlled 
substance by means of the Internet without having conducted 
at least one in‐person medical evaluation. 
 
The Ryan Haight Act adds two new criminal offenses to the 
CSA.  The first new offense is set forth in 21 U.S.C. 841(h)(1), 
which states:  It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
or intentionally deliver, distribute, or dispense a controlled 
substance by means of the Internet, except as authorized by 
[the CSA]. 
 
The use of the words “will,” “makes,” and “new” support pre‐Ryan 
Haight Act indictments are legally flawed and invalid.    

13
   
9. BREACHES OF ATTORNEY‐CLEINT PRIVILEDGE 
Invasion of Defense Camp  
Stoufflet was informed on April 26th 2007 that AUSA Randy Chartash 
was contacting his legal counsel and discussing privileged 
information.  
 
“They have contacted one lawyer that I know of (Darren Traub) 
and asked him about all sorts of privileged communications.”  
 
The attorney‐client‐privileged was not waived at this time. 
 
Joint Defense Agreement Breached 
Co‐defendant Riggins and Sobert and their legal counsel, Gillen and 
Froelich were required to formally withdraw from the Joint Defense 
Agreement before meeting with the Government.  There was an 
active Joint Defense Agreement that required official notifications of 
withdrawal.  At no time were any notifications of withdrawal 
provided. The Government and co‐defendants were aware of the JDA 
agreement. To be official and effective, it was necessary that all six 
participants execute the agreement in the presence of counsel.    
  
10.  NO EVIDENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING –  
           UNFOUNDED CHARGES ADDED TO “PUFF‐UP” INDICTMENT 
Prosecutors have fabricated and included 44 counts of money 
laundering. Prosecutors cannot produce one single piece of evidence 
that would even suggest any attempt to hide or conceal any funds at 
anytime. Reputable third‐party accountants and CPA’s, in addition to 
a former IRS Forensic Accountant for the Criminal Division reviewed 
and directed all financial data. At no time did anyone believe or even 
suspect there was ever any attempt to conceal any funds.  Legal 
counsel, Mr. Wilmer "Buddy" Parker, is widely acclaimed for his 
expertise in the area of "money laundering".   Under his watch, the 
business he was advising racked up 44 counts of money laundering. 
  
 
 

14
11.  MISBRANDING OF DRUGS CHARGES  
The U.S. Attorney’s Office constructed 3 additional criminal counts 
for the “Misbranding of Drugs”.   
Counts 49, 50, & 51 allege that Stoufflet caused these drugs to be 
misbranded.  Stoufflet never possessed any of the drugs, therefore 
he never had access to cause this act.  
 
The “controlled substances” used in these charges were authorized 
by licensed medical doctors and distributed and dispensed by 
licensed pharmacies. Neither doctors nor pharmacies were 
referenced in these charges.  
  
COUNTS DATE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS DISTRIBUTED & DISPENSED
49 09/16/2003 30 Phentermine 37.5 doses distributed and dispensed to 
R.A.K. in Atlanta, Georgia
50 10/01/2003 30 Phentermine 37.5 mg doses distributed and dispensed
to R.A.K. in Atlanta, Georgia
51 10/17/2003 90 Adipex P 37.5 mg doses distributed and dispensed to 
R.A.K. in Atlanta, Georgia

12.  CONFLICTING POSITIONS WITHIN U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE  
In August 2006, United States Attorney David E. Nahmias issued the 
following statement regarding Stoufflet's case: 
  
“These defendants, particularly the doctors charged, allegedly 
chose Internet profits over legal and ethical medical practices.” 
 
However, prosecutors recently decided that the doctors' acts did not 
merit criminal sanctions and dropped all felony charges, allowing the 
doctors to plea guilty to offenses of a misdemeanor nature.  
Additional confusion results from these two contradictory positions 
of the prosecutors: 
Ignorance of the law is no excuse / you cannot use advice of counsel 
 
13.  MISUSE OF POLICY AS LAW 
DEA Policy vs LAW  
DEA “Policy” as Law 2001 DEA Internet Prescribing Guidelines 

15
 A recent 11th circuit ruling in U.S. vs. Hernandez denied the 
Government from using a 2001 DEA “policy” as Law.  
 
In STOUFFLET’S case, the Government has repeatedly used this policy 
but misrepresents it as LAW, stating that the business was illegal.   
(example) 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.” 
  
14.  WILLFUL DECEIT AND UNTRUTHFULNESS  
A. “Doctor/Patient” communications: The Governments states 
throughout the proceedings that the doctors had no contact with 
the patients. This is false because defendant STOUFFLET paid 
physicians to promptly respond to customer questions. 
 
B. 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. 
  
15.  MISREPRESENTION OF MEDICAL BOARD “POLICY” AS STATE “LAW” 
In the indictment the Government misstates medical board policy 
and regulations and references them as “State Laws” in numerous 
instances throughout the proceedings. 
  
16.  GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO INQUIRE ABOUT  
            CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATIONS  
Parker and Gillen had divided loyalties in their representation of 
Stoufflet and co‐defendant Riggins and the business partnership.  
 
Attorney Don Samuel acknowledged in his testimony during the 
hearing on Stoufflet’s request to Withdraw his Guilty Plea that Parker 
was on record as counsel for Stoufflet. Shortly before the indictment, 
Stoufflet hired Ed Garland and Don Samuel as lead counsel, Parker 

16
 was co‐counsel. The conflict occurred when Parker’s business 
partner, Craig Gillen began cooperating with Federal prosecutors on 
the case.  Parker and Gillen had guaranteed Stoufflet (in writing) that 
they would not abandon him if a conflict occurred. Parker made no 
attempt to discuss issues of a potential conflict, or any options to 
avoid one. Parker never offered to withdraw or offered to Stoufflet 
the option to waive the conflict because the conflict had already 
happened and Stoufflet was informed of it "after the fact". 
 
Ironically, this same U.S. Attorney’s Office has taken a very strong 
position against these very same attorneys for a Conflict of Interest 
violation in the case of the former Mayor of Atlanta a few months 
prior. These were the same issues as in my case. The 11th Circuit 
agreed with the U.S. Attorney’s office and had recently ruled against 
Parker and Gillen.  
  
17.  PROTECTING FORMER DOJ EMPLOYEES  
Three attorneys who provided legal business advice to Stoufflet are 
former AUSA’s and have worked in this very same Northern District 
of Georgia U.S. Attorney's office have avoided prosecution. They 
have declared the business legal and fully participated in advising the 
business and received $1.5 Million from what now has been declared 
“ill‐gotten‐gains”.  
  
18.  ADVISING DEFENDANT IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL   
Although Stoufflet believed he had terminated defense counsel Don 
Samuel and Ed Garland, AUSA Sommerfeld and Chartash informed 
him that until the Court Docket reflected otherwise, they remained 
said counsel but decided to meet with Stoufflet without counsel 
present. AUSA Sommerfeld and U.S. Attorney Nahmias strongly 
advised Stoufflet to remain with said counsel.  
 
The cumulative effect of the government's repeated acts of misconduct 
should preclude them from claiming this constitutes harmless error. 
 
  

17
 INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL  
Investigation of Former Counsel Ed Garland and Don Samuel
 
1. FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ETHICS 
VIOLATIONS, RULE VIOLATIONS, AND PROCEDURALS ERRORS  
The inadequate representation of attorneys Ed Garland and Don 
Samuel are presented in eighteen separate issues provided in the 
enclosed addendum. Each issue is briefly described and supported by 
facts.  
 
2. FAILURE TO REPORT OR SEEK REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE 
INADEQUACIES OF FORMER ADVSING COUNSEL  
There is good reason to believe that Garland and Samuel deployed 
these deceitful tactics to mask prior errors and professional 
deficiencies and quickly dispose of the case.  
 
There is good reason to believe that by Stoufflet pleading guilty, 
Garland and Samuel can justify and possibly alleviate their obligation 
to report the their fellow colleagues for providing legal advice that 
acquired for Stoufflet  a 52 Count criminal Indictment.  
 
According to the ABA Standard 4‐5.1 Advising the Accused 
(b) Defense counsel should not intentionally understate or 
overstate the risks, hazards, or prospects of the case to exert 
undue influence on the accused's decision as to his or her plea. 
 
3. BREACHES OF ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE 
a. INVASION OF DEFENSE CAMP IS UNCHALLENGED 
April 26th 2007 Stoufflet was informed that AUSA Randy 
Chartash was contacting his legal counsel and discussing 
privileged information.  
 
A. Levitt to Shuren (Arent Fox)  
[April 26 2007]   1   
“It appears that the prosecutors are interviewing the 

1
 Levitt to Allison Shuren (Attorney fro Aren’t Fox): April 26 2007 

1
 various lawyers that represented Chris and the 
companies in the past. They have contacted one lawyer 
that I know of (Darren Traub) and asked him about all 
sorts of privileged communications.”  
 
B. Levitt to Samuel  [April 26 2007]  2  
“I need a couple of minutes of your time to brainstorm 
a touchy subject. 1 received a call from Darren Traub, 
former in‐house counsel for Stoufflet. He calJed to 
report that Chartash and his minions called him 
yesterday to ask questoins about issues related to his 
representation of Chris centered on whether he had 
ever given advice to Chris regarding the legality of this 
business plan. Unfortunatedly, although giving lip 
service to the privilege, he gave many answers of a 
privileged nature.” 
 
C. Legal Memo [Levitt to Samuel]   3  
“LETTER TO CHARTASH RE; CONTACT WITH TRAUB.. DO 
WE WANT A CHINESEWALL; DO WE WANT TO EXCLUDE 
CHARTASH AS THE PROSECUTOR?” 
 
D. Legal Memo [Levitt to Samuel]  4  
“LETTER TO CHARTASH RE; CONTACT WITH TRAUB” 
 
E. Legal Memo – Interview With Traub   
[Levitt to Samuel] [June 24 2007]  5  
“Apparently this was his position when he talked to the 
US Attorney’s’ Office last month” 
 
4. JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT BREACHED  6  
Stoufflet made numerous requests to Don Samuel and Ed Garland to 
subpoena a copy of the Joint Defense Agreement of his co‐

2
April 26 2007: Levitt and Samuel:‐ Subject: RE: 2 Matters 
3
Levitt/Samuel: Chinese Wall [Exclude Chartash as Prosecutor]
4
Levitt/Samuel: CHECKLIST FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON STOUFFLET
5
Levitt Samuel [Traub Interview] June 24 2008
6
 Copy of legally binding Joint Defense Agreement  

2
 defendants who had engaged discussion with the Government. The 
agreement mandated provisions for withdrawal, but no withdrawal 
was ever offered or provided.   
  
Don Samuel never attempted to acquire, much less subpoena this 
relevant and critical agreement. On several occasions he provides 
Stoufflet false information about the Joint Defense Agreement, 
intentionally misinforming him, stating it was invalid. At one point, he 
told Stoufflet such an agreement did not exist.   
 
It was through Stoufflet’s own efforts, he acquired a copy of the Joint 
Defense Agreement. This agreement, executed by co‐defendants 
Riggins, and Sobert, in addition to defense attorney’s Parker, Gillen, 
and Froelich remains valid as of this date but has yet to be 
addressed. 
 
5. ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATION  
Attorney Don Samuel misrepresents the facts to conceal the conflict 
rather than exposes it.   
 
Stoufflet, who was represented by Parker and co‐defendant Riggins, 
represented by Gillen. Parker and Gillen were 2 of 3 lawyers in the 
Atlanta Office of law firm, Gillen, Cromwell, Parker, & Withers.  
Parker and Gillen guaranteed Stoufflet in writing that if conflict ever 
occurred, he would not be abandoned as they would take the 
necessary measures to protect his interest.  
 
Although Parker was not lead counsel for Stoufflet at the time the 
conflict occurred, Stoufflet was never provided an opportunity to 
waive the privilege as the conflict already occurred and Stoufflet 
found out about Riggins through a 3rd party source. Parker and Gillen 
had allowed Riggins to cooperate with the Government and failed to 
inform, much less take any action to protect Stoufflet’s interest.  
 
Don Samuel provides false and misleading information to Stoufflet 
and states that he protected Stoufflet from any conflict from 
happening.  

3
  
Being highly regarded by many in the 11th Circuit as one of the top 
criminal defense attorneys, the probability of Samuel overlooking 
such a serious error is highly unlikely..  
 
Stoufflet filed grievances with the State Bar of Georgia in October 
2008 against Parker and Gillen for this conflict‐of‐interest violation 
and was informed last week that his grievances hold merit and a 
formal investigation was being initiated against Parker and Gillen. 
State Bar of Georgia Office of General Counsel, Disciplinary Cases:  
090201 & 090202.  
 
SAFEGUARDING OF PROPERTY  7  
Parker and Gillen remained partners and all Stoufflet’s case evidence 
remained at the shared offices for months until Stoufflet request it 
be moved.  
 
Stoufflet had volumes of evidence relating to the conflict. 
 
6. PROVIDING FALSE STATEMENTS AND FAILURE TO INFORM 
STOUFFLET OF FAVORABLE RULING  
a. On several occasions Stoufflet directly inquired about the 
ruling to Samuel and he misleads Stoufflet stating that the 
advice of counsel was never ruled on.  
 
b. On August 1st 2008, in an email correspondence, Stoufflet and 
Samuel discussing this very issue, Samuel stated:  
“That is what we were filing motions about the week 
before the scheduled trial. We were the ones fighting to 
get that evidence admitted; the government was 
fighting to keep the evidence out .And, of course, the 
judge never decided the issue.”  8  
 

7
August 29 2006 – Stoufflet and Dennington [Parkers secretary] email
8
 Samuel Stoufflet August 1 2008 email  

4
7. FAILURE TO AQUIRE FAVORBALE EVIDENCE  
[TAPED RECORDED CONVERSATIONS OF JOINT DEFENSE ATTORNEY 
JEROME FROELICH]  
a. Co‐defendant Sobert taped numerous conversations and 
played these recordings in which attorney Froelich authorizes 
the conduct we were charged of violating. Sobert played these 
recordings for Stoufflet and numerous others. 
Stoufflet made numerous requests to Don Samuel and Ed 
Garland to subpoena copies of these recordings, as they were 
invaluable, providing first‐hand evidence of what the lawyers 
were advising us.  
 
Don Samuel never made any attempt to secure these critical 
pieces of evidence.  
 
8. FAILURE TO PRESENT CRITICAL EVIDENCE 
a. The Government Violates Federal Law to Obtain “Controlled 
Substance” For The Indictment 
Title 21 § 843 PROHIBITED ACTS 
(a)  Unlawful acts 
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or 
intentionally—  
(3) to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled 
substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, 
deception, or subterfuge; 
 
(4) (A) to furnish false or fraudulent material information 
in, or omit any material information from, any 
application, report, record, or other document required 
to be made, kept, or filed under this subchapter or 
subchapter II of this chapter, or 
 
b. Failure To Present Legal Contracts With Government Agents  
Legal agreements provided specific stipulations and conditions 
that were binding and agreed upon by R.A.K. and K.A. in the 
indictment  
 

5
c. Failure to present Legal Contracts  
The “Manner and Means” is defined in the legal agreements 
that were binding during the alleged illegal acts. These 
agreements should have been used to challenge the 
government’s incorrect description in the indictment.   
Legal agreements provided the foundation of the business and 
the provisions and prerequisites of each transaction, (“Manner 
and Means”). These legally binding contracts are relevant to 
each Count of the Indictment. 
 
d. Failure To Challenge Title 21 USC Section 1306.04: 
Section 1306.04: that the prescriptions were “other than a 
legitimate medical purpose”.  
 
The legitimate medical purpose for the issuance of the 
controlled substances was “obesity”.  All prescriptions for 
“controlled substances” were based upon the criteria the 
physicians deemed obese; such as BMI (Body Mass Index).  
 
The government’s claims that the “controlled substance” were 
for “other than a legitimate medical purpose” are unfounded.  
 
e. Failure To Challenge Counts 49, 50, & 51 “Misbranding of 
Drugs”   
Title 21 USC 353 (b) (1) “The act of dispensing a 
prescription drug without the prescription of a 
practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug was 
an act that caused the drug to become misbranded while 
held for sale.” 
 
Stoufflet never possessed any of the “controlled 
substances” and the physicians and the pharmacist 
acted independently, independent, and third parity, it 
Stoufflet did not have the ability to cause such an act.  
 
 
 

6
 A prescription was issued for the “controlled 
substances” in Counts 49, 50, & 51, authorized by a 
physician, licensed by the State Medical Board and the 
DEA.  
 
The “act of dispensing” and distributing the “controlled 
substances” in Counts 49, 50, & 51 were done so by the 
“filling” of a prescription issued by a pharmacist, 
licensed by the State pharmacy Board and the DEA. L 
 
Neither the doctors that authorized the prescriptions 
nor the pharmacy’s that dispensed the prescription in 
Counts 49, 50, & 51 are referenced.   
 
This is an example of the prosecutor’s ability to 
misconstrue and fabricate the facts. There is no 
evidence that suggest this occurred.  
 
9. FAILURE TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE IN WHICH “VOID FOR 
VAGUENESS” IS MOST APPLICABLE 
The chief provisions of the very statue Stoufflet was charged of 
violating, 21 USC Section 841 was amend. The enactment of a new 
law “The online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008” aka 
“The Ryan Haight Act” provided new information that was 
unavailable at the time the Court initially ruled on this issue.  
 
The Ryan Haight Act adds two new criminal offenses to the CSA.  The 
first new offense is set forth in 21 U.S.C. 841(h)(1), which states:   
 
“It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or 
intentionally deliver, distribute, or dispense a controlled 
substance by means of the Internet, except as authorized by 
[the CSA].” 
 
The law becomes effective April 13, 2009.  Thus, as of April 13, 
2009, it will be illegal under federal law to ‘deliver, distribute, 
or dispense a controlled substance by means of the Internet, 

7
 except as authorized [by the CSA]‘ or to aid or abet such 
activity. 
 
A good‐faith attempt to inform the Court of this new information is 
reasonably justified. It should be noted that due to Don Samuel’s 
expertise, he was extremely capable to present such creditable 
evidence to the Court but it was simply refused when Stoufflet 
requested.   
 
CONCLUSION 
The conduct of Ed Garland and Don Samuel demand answers and 
accountability and swift and action. 

I believe this document and supporting evidence 9  that counsels errors are 
so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed 
the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Also in showing that counsel's 
errors were so serious as to deprive me of fairness in the proceedings.  

 My repeated request and attempts to have counsel address these very 
same issues have resulted in unnecessary delay, but refusal.  
 
I believe this document provides fair and just reason to investigate all issues 
I have provided herein and remedy the issues as required by law. 10   
 
Respectfully Submitted, 
 
 
 
Chris Stoufflet 
 
 
 
 
9
I have volumes of supporting evidence and can be made available upon request. I have only enclosed a 
few supporting documents in an effort to keep this document brief.   
10
 Standard 4‐8.6 Challenges to the Effectiveness of Counsel 
(a) If defense counsel, after investigation, is satisfied that another defense counsel who served in an 
earlier phase of the case did not provide effective assistance, he or she should not hesitate to seek relief 
for the defendant on that ground.

8
Re: Stoufflet materials
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
1:45 PM

Subject
Re: Stoufflet materials
From Da vi d B. Levitt
To Shuren, Allison
Cc etg@gsllaw.com; dfs@gsllaw.com; cms@cmichaelmail.net
Sent Thurs day, April 26, 2007 10:36 AM

Allison,

I just called your office, and was told that you are travelling, and were reachable
by e-mail. I have two matters to raise with you.

1. As of yet, we have not recieved the material related to the representation of

Chris and his companies. As I indicated before, the trial date draws near (at least
at this point if not continued), and there is a bit of urgency attached to our receipt
of these materials. Is there anything else I can do to expedite the process?

2. It appears that the prosecutors are interviewing the various lawyers that
represented Chris and the companies in the past. They have contacted one lawyer
that I know of (Darren Traub) and asked him about all sorts of privileged
communications. I know that this goes without saying, but I feel compelled to say
it; Chris asserts his attorney-client privilege with regard to any conversations,
work-product generated, any and all communications that occurred between your
firm and Chris while you were representing him. If the prosecutors call, I am sure
that you will use your discretion, and honor the privilege. If there are matters that
you do not deem privileged, I would prefer to discuss those matters with you first,
then the prosecutors and a judge if necessary about the proper bounds of
questioning.

I will send you a letter memorializing this assertion of the privilege. Please call me
with any questions. If they call you, and I suspect they will, they will press for
answers, particularly with resepect to advice, or lack thereof regarding the legality
of Chris' business model.

David 404 405 0919

"Shuren, Allison" <Shuren.Allison@ARENTFOX.COM> wrote:

David,
I am traveling will call you today in between flights. I have pulled the files out of
storage but need an attestation from you that Chris has the authority to make
Garland & Samule Page 1
storage but need an attestation from you that Chris has the authority to make
decisions on behalf of both e-Scripts and the other Company (which I am blanking
on the name). There were others involved with the Company and without such an
attestation the other investors could have a claim against us. The firm has been
burned before in such a scenario. Also, the partner, Robert Waters, left AF and his
files would have gone with him. He is at Gardner Carton in DC now.

----- Original Message -----

From: David B. Levitt
To: Shuren, Allison
Cc: etg@gsllaw.com ; cms@michaelmail.net
Sent: Tue Apr 17 10:48:24 2007
Subject: Stoufflet materials

Allison,

I am sorry to be a pest, but Judge Cooper just set the trial for May 21,2007. This is
of course a short date for a case this big. We hope it will not go on that date, but
as I am sure you know, one never knows.

So. I am in urgent need of your Stoufflet file. Please give me a call at 404 405 0919
(cell) or 404 262 2225. tolet me know when you think we could expect to receive
these materials, or if there are any problems.

You had mentioned my address caption. I am contract status here. I evacuated

from New Orleans, and found work here, and am still here.

The address for these materials is:

David Levitt C/O
Garland, Samuel and Loeb
3151 Maple Drive NE
Atlanta, Ga 30305

Thanks for your help.

David

David B. Levitt
Attorney at Law
700 Camp Street, Suite 316
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Garland & Samule Page 2

700 Camp Street, Suite 316
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
tel: (504) 528-9500 fax: (504) 528-9036
dlevitt@levittllc.com

IRS Circular 230 disclosure:

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein.

David B. Levitt
Attorney at Law
700 Camp Street, Suite 316
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
tel: (504) 528-9500 fax: (504) 528-9036
dlevitt@levittllc.com

Garland & Samule Page 3

Yahoo! Mail - webmaster@levittllc.com Page I of2

Small Business Home Sea!¢h

the W~b Search
Welcome,
YASOO!, SMALL BUSINESS webmaster@levittllc.com
Email [Sign Out, My Account]

Mail 'I Addresses ~ Calendar ~ Notepad ~ Mail Ol!tions - Manage My Services

Check Maill Compose ------S;;rclt Mail I Search the Web I

Mail Accounts
Previous I Next I Back to Messages

levittllc.com -Delete I Reply .... 1 Forward J

.... Spam I Move... ~I
yahoo.com
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread 1 Printable View

Folders [Add - Edit] Subject: RE: 2 matters

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:21:24 -0400

Inbox (1537)
Draft "Don Samuel" <dfs@gsllaw.com> eJAdd to Address Book til Add Mobile
From:
Alert
Sent
To: "David B. Levitt" <dlevitt@levittllc.com>
Bulk [Empty]

Trash [Empty] The parole people are: Jake Arbes (atty); David Botts (ally); .~.ik.~..~~I_n_tl'r_~
(atty); Mike Fleming (former parole board official who works with Mcintyre).
Search Shortcuts Let's talk about Traub anytime today.
dfs
My Photos
My Attachments
From: David B. Levitt [mailto:cj_I~\Ii!t~I~\I_i_tl.:I.I_c_:~()!!1J
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:10 AM
To: Don Samuel
Subject: 2 matters

Don,

1.1 obviiously have a mental block with respect to the Parole names you
have given me. If they are written down in an e-mail, 1 have no excuse.

2. I need a couple of minutes of your time to brainstorm a touchy

subject. 1 received a call from Darren Traub, former in-house counsel for
Stoufflet. He calJed to report that Chartash and his minions called him
yesterday to ask questoins about issues related to his representation of
Chris centered on whether he had ever given advice to Chris regarding
the legality of this business plan. Unfortunatedly, although giving lip
service to the privilege, he gave many answers of a privileged nature.

I want to get your input on how to handle this with the USATTY's
office, and the other counsel involved. I am hopping mad, although a
little less than yesterday.

David

http://b6.mail.yallOo.com/ym/levittllc.com/ShowLetter?MsgId=1208_22561826 2840926 ... 4/26/2007

C. DEAL WITH CIVIL CASES (MADE $5000 OFFER TO PHARMACIA ON
6/3-WILL HEAR BACK LATER THIS WEEK).

D. LETTER TO CHARTASHRE; CONTACT WITH TRAUB.. DO WE WANT

A CHINESEWALL; DO WE WANT TO EXCLUDE CHARTASH AS THE
PROSECUTOR?

E. REQUEST FROM AUSA SOMMERFIELD DEA 6S, AFFIDAVIT IN

SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT. THESE REQUESTS HAVE ALREADY
BEEN MADE.

F. DEVELOP THEORY OF ADMISSIBILITY TO INTRODUCE THE

TRANSCRIPT OF THE R.ll HEARING ON 8/2/01 WHERE MATERIALS
WERE RETURNED TO STOUFFLET, AND HE WAS ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS

g. TROY SORBET IS SCHEDULED TO PLEAD GUILTY ON 6/5/01.AT 4:00

P.M. PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WILL INCLUDE A SKU
MOTION. I WILL ATTEND THIS PROCEEDING.
CHECKLIST FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON STOUFFLET

A.CASEMAP THE UNIVERSE OF MATERIALS IN OUR POSSESSION

1. BUDDY PARKER BOXES (THERE ARE AT LEAST A DOZEN) ;THIS WILL

INCLUDE A CORPORATE HISTORY, AND SPECIFICALLY LETTERS
REGARDING MEDICAL PRACTICE
2. ARE T FOX BOXES (THERE ARE 3); THIS WILL INCLUDE A
CORPORATE HISTORY, AND SPECIFICALLY LETTERS REGARDING
MEDICAL PRACTICE
3. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF STATES IN WHICH CHRIS WORKED
4. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MATERIALS (THEY NEED TO
BE SCANNED AND PUT INTO CASEMAP
5. MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS FROM CHRIS (OVER THE MONTHS HE
HAS GIVEN ME A VOLUMINOUS NUMBER OF E-MAILS, MOSTLY
FROM HIS LAWYERS. THESE WILL BE ENTERED INTO CASEMAP, THIS
WILL INCLUDE PRPRIETY OF PRACTICE.
6. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SEARCH WARRANT ON 8/1/01 AND
THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO RELEASE THESE DOCUMENTS
THESE NEED TO BE SCANNED INTO CASEMAP.

6. POSSIBLE DEFENSES ENTERED INTO CASE MAP WITH SUPPORTING

CASE LAW (ENTRAPMENT BY ESTOPPELL, ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND
GENERAL INTENT

B. WITNESS LIST TO BE DEVOLOPED, INCLUDING FORMER

EMPLOYEES OF THE TH STOUFFLET COMPANIES AND FDA AGENT
PAUL SOUTHERN, AND INTERVIEWED

C. DEAL WITH CIVIL CASES

D. LETTER TO CHARTASH RE; CONTACT WITH TRAUB

 JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT

The undersigned parties, individually and/or through their counsel stipulate and

agree as follows.

1. eScripts.md, LLC (hereinafter "eScripts") is a Georgia corporation.

Youthspan, Inc., d/b/a LifeSpan, Inc. (hereinafter "LifeSpan") is a Georgia corporation.

Christopher Stouffiet, Troy Sobert and Erin Riggins are principals/officers of eScripts

and LifeSpan.

2. There is and has been pending an investigation by the Federal Drug

Administration (''FDA''). Pursuant to the investigation, the FDA executed a search

warrant on the premises ofeScripts and LifeSpan. The undersigned have been served

with Federal Grand Jury subpoenas, or expect to receive subpoenas seeking handwriting

exemplars.

3. On or about August 2, 2001 the United States Department of Justice acting

through the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, caused to be

executed the criminal search warrant to search the premises of the corporations located at

Suite 405, 2000 Powers Ferry Road, Marietta, Georgia. Some employees' work areas

were among those searched.

4. In the course of the investigation, the FDA has made statements alleging

violations of the laws of the United States and that such violations may result in criminal

or civil penalties.

5. The undersigned each represent on their own behalfto the other

signatories that they deny the allegations made by FDA that violations of the laws of the
 Untied States have been committed in connection with the business of eScripts and

LifeSpan and intend to vigorously defend such unfounded charges, whether brought

through civil or criminal process.

6. The undersigned at present know of no basis, factually or legally, to claim

in response to any action which may be brought that another signatory rather than

himself, herself or itself is responsible for alleged violations of laws.

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE, that it is in their individual

and joint interest to present a united defense to such charges, if they are brought, which is

that they have not committed any violation, civil or criminal of the laws of the United

States or the State of Georgia in connection with their personal involvement in eScripts

and LifeSpan. In order to more effectively mount such a defense, the parties agree that it

is in their mutual interest for their counsel to share information and exchange

communications. The parties further agree that the ability of the parties and their counsel

to communicate fully and freely without fear of disclosure of such communications is

critical to advancing the common interest of defending against the foregoing false

charges. Therefore, the parties hereto and their counsel and any other person retained on

their behalf in defense of any charges related to eScripts and LifeSpan shall keep

confidential any communications made in aid of the joint defense and that such

communications may only be further disseminated to another signatory of the agreement

or their counsel.

The parties stipulate and agree that all communications, written or oral, by

between and among counsel for any purpose related to this the defense of the charges

2
ATU.IBOI 1212965. 109110101 3:30PM
 related to eScripts and LifeSpan are deemed to be attorney client privileged under the so-

called joint defense or commonality of interest rule and may not be disclosed for any

purpose. Further, any work product developed by counsel individually or collectively is

privileged as well and shall not be disclosed.

The parties stipulate and agree that any communication, written or oral, between

signatories who are non-lawyers outside the presence of any attorney related to the

defense of any claims related to eScripts and LifeSpan are confidential communications

and will not be disclosed to any person not a signatory to this agreement.

The parties undertake to keep all documents which are confidential, attorney

client privileged or work product documents marked as such and segregated from non-

confidential communications in an area that is not readily accessible to others; however

the failure to do so shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the privilege or confidentiality.

The parties agree to notify other signatories to this agreement in the event non-

signatories attempt by legal process or other means to obtain the documents from them.

The parties each shall vigoroUsly assert objections to any legal process to obtain

documents subject to this agreement or to compel testimony as to such communications.

No party hereto may waive the privilege as to any document generated as part of the joint

defense without the consent of all signatories hereto.

Any party signing this agreement after the effective date of this agreement is

required to treat all communications made prior to the date he or she signed as

confidential in addition to those made after the date of signature.

3
ATWBOII222965 , 1 09110101 3:30PM
 Any party seeking to withdraw from this joint defense agreement may do so by

giving written notice to all other signatories or their counsel. After the date of the receipt

by all parties of notice of withdrawal from the defense agreement, any communication to

a party withdrawing shall not be deemed to be privileged or confidential. However, a

party withdrawing from this agreement is still bound by this agreement to keep all

communications prior to the effective date of the withdrawal confidential.

Due to the irreparable harm which would result if confidential communications

made in aid of the joint defense were ever revealed, the parties hereto stipulate that such a

breach of confidentiality or the imminent breach of confidentiality constitutes irreparable

harm to all other signatories and that anyone of them may enjoin a breach through an

injunction.

Effective Date: September 10, 2001

1-2.0 -til'
Date of signature

Date of signature

Cj-J 0-01
Date of signature ErinRig~'ns _

. 'Pr
'.-..,;;-z/z.,o

4
ATI.UBOI 122296~i.1 09/10101 3:30PM
RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am
pulling up
Saturday, October 04, 2008
11:07 PM

Subject
RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up
From Stoufflet LLC | Chri s Stoufflet
To 'Ta mmy R. Dennington'
Sent Tues day, August 29, 2006 10:47 PM

From: Tammy R. Dennington [mailto:tdennington@gcpwlaw.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:12 AM
To: 'Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up

You can come whenever you’re ready. Just let me know in advance because I’ve had to
offload the servers from the cart they’ve been sitting on for days as the hand truck was
needed elsewhere. You’ll likely have to park in the loading dock now as the hand truck
that’s available will only hold one at a time and now this will take three trips.

Tammy R. Dennington
Legal Assistant
Gillen Parker & Withers LLC
One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
3490 Piedmont Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 842-9700 - Telephone
(404) 842-9750 - Facsimile
tdennington@gcpwlaw.com - e-mail

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended for the use of the
designated recipients named above. This message may be an attorney-client
communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in
error and that any review, dissemination or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone or return e-mail and return the original message to
us. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet [mailto:cstoufflet@stouffletllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:07 AM
To: 'Tammy R. Dennington'
Cc: 'Buddy Parker'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up

When do you want me to come by?

Thanks,
-Chris

Unfiled Notes Page 1

From: Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet [mailto:cstoufflet@stouffletllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:27 AM
To: 'Tammy R. Dennington'
Cc: 'Buddy Parker'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up

Ms. Tammy,

I can come by after 11 to pick up the servers and help you look for the book. I gave it to Erin to bring
with the sample supplies from Pharmacia a while back and he did.
Once again, it is important that we find it. I think it would be a good idea to have an inventory list of
everything stored at your office, since we have had issues looking for things in the past and now with
what Mr. Gillen and Erin did and how they handled things, really makes me uncomfortable. I appreciate
your understanding.

Thank you,
-Chris Stoufflet

From: Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet [mailto:cstoufflet@stouffletllc.com]

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:36 PM
To: 'Tammy R. Dennington'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up

Ms. Tammy,

I am almost positive it is blue and a huge 3 ring binder. It was taken to the office when Erin took the
samples from Pharmacia. If it not over there, we have a big problem.

Sorry, I didn’t know you were leaving at 4;30. I can be the early in the morning to pick up the servers
and help look for the binder. Do you have an inventory of everything that we have there?

Thank you,

-Chris

From: Tammy R. Dennington [mailto:tdennington@gcpwlaw.com]

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:30 PM
To: 'Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling up

I looked in the boxes we have stored for you and there is no blue notebook.

Tammy R. Dennington
Legal Assistant
Gillen Parker & Withers LLC
One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
3490 Piedmont Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 842-9700 - Telephone
(404) 842-9750 - Facsimile
tdennington@gcpwlaw.com - e-mail

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended for the use of
the designated recipients named above. This message may be an attorney-client
communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this

Unfiled Notes Page 2

communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document
in error and that any review, dissemination or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone or return e-mail and return the original message to
us. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet [mailto:cstoufflet@stouffletllc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:30 PM
To: 'Tammy R. Dennington'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling
up

Ok –where do I look for the blue book?

-Chris

From: Tammy R. Dennington [mailto:tdennington@gcpwlaw.com]

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:25 PM
To: 'Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet'
Subject: RE: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am pulling
up

I leave at 4:30. You’ll have to come up to the office as I will be

gone. Sorry.

Tammy R. Dennington
Legal Assistant
Gillen Parker & Withers LLC
One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
3490 Piedmont Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 842-9700 - Telephone
(404) 842-9750 - Facsimile
tdennington@gcpwlaw.com - e-mail

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended for

the use of the designated recipients named above. This message may
be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient
or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that
any review, dissemination or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail and return the
original message to us. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stoufflet LLC | Chris Stoufflet [mailto:cstoufflet@stouffletllc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:23 PM
To: tdennington@gcpwlaw.com

Unfiled Notes Page 3

To: tdennington@gcpwlaw.com
Subject: I will be over in about 20-30 minutes - I will call when I am
pulling up

Christopher Michael Stoufflet

Unfiled Notes Page 4

  
From: Don Samuel [mailto:dfs@gsllaw.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:26 PM 
To: CMS | CMichael Group 
Subject: RE: RE: Monday's meeting 
  
  
1. The prosecutors want to ask you about Dr. Hollis in particular and the 
history of his involvement in the company. 
  
2. I agree with your statement regarding “Side 1”. I think your statement of 
“Side 2” is not exactly accurate. I don’t know that I have ever said “you 
should have known” – I don’t think that is the correct way to phrase the 
situation. I think that a better way to describe the situation is that you were 
receiving warning flags from some lawyers (particularly Arent Fox and some 
of the lawyers at Kilpatrick) and that you decided that a “warning” was not 
equivalent to a stop sign. I don’t mean to be silly about it, but I think that is 
more accurate than “you should have known.” As far as the advice to plead 
guilty, that is more complicated. My greatest concern has always been that 
the court would decide that relying on a lawyer IS NOT A DEFENSE at all to 
this type of crime. You may say that that is not justice and I don’t 
necessarily disagree, but that may be exactly what the law says. That is the 
great risk. If the court were to decide that relying on a lawyer’s advice is not 
a defense, then we would not be able to introduce any evidence relating to 
the lawyer’s advice. The issue is not whether the lawyer’s gave you 
insufficient or inaccurate advice. WE ALL AGREE THAT THAT HAPPENED. 
The question is whether that is a defense to the charge. And remember, the 
government knows about the advice from Arent Fox and Traub and Parker 
and Gillen and Kilpatrick and the issue with Scofield and THEY WERE THE 
ONES WHO FILED THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL THAT EVIDENCE AS BEING 
IRRELEVANT. That is what we were filing motions about the week before 
the scheduled trial. We were the ones fighting to get that evidence 
admitted; the government was fighting to keep the evidence out. And, of 
course, the judge never decided the issue. 
  
3. Regarding the three items you want to retrieve. I can issue subpoena, but 
a subpoena in a criminal case can only seek to have the document/tape etc 
returned to court for trial or the hearing. We have no trial or hearing 
scheduled, so I cannot issue a subpoena right now. 
  
4. I have produced everything to the government. I don’t think that 
anything else will change with them. However, I think the court will be very 
interested in these materials when he decides what to do at sentencing. If, 
as I fear, the informtion is not admissible at trial to prove innocence, it is 
still absolutely and positively admissible at sentencing to prove why no 
sentence is appropriate. Does that make sense?  
  
5. I am on your side. I am not defending, at any time or place, Parker, 
Gillen, Froelich, Arent Fox; Traub, or anybody else. I am not protecting 
them. I am committed to bringing out into the open, all the letters and 
emails that led you to believe that the conduct was not illegal. I have done 
that in the past. I will do that in the future. I have never hesitated to do 
that. I am on your side and there is no equivocating about that. 
  
Don 
  
  
From: CMS | CMichael Group [mailto:cms@cmichaelgroup.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:08 PM 
To: Don Samuel 
Cc: Ed Garland 
Subject: RE: Monday's meeting 
  
  
Hello Mr. Samuel and Mr. Garland, 
  
  
I will begin by addressing the issue of me being disrespectful.  
If you think that I have become disrespectful in my communications, I 
apologize because I have always strived to conduct myself in a very 
respectful manner, even if I am being mistreated and FALSELY ACCUSED. All 
of my communications for the past 2 years have been extremely respectful. 
I am now at the point where I feel I have been very much mistreated and 
disrespected and I am exhausted in my efforts to have you accept the truth.  
And month after month I have presented you one episode after another of 
the wrongdoings of Parker, Gillen, and Froelich and I had to watch both of 
you choose to “turn a blind‐eye” to such serious issues. I can tell you that 
has only intensified matters with me. 
  
  
In response to everything, here is the unfortunate position I face and how I 
see things.  
  
  
Because of all of the avoidance I have received in addressing the serious 
matters in this case, it seems as you and Mr. Garland have been able to 
take 2 sides SIDE 1) You both have agreed and told me that what had 
happened was wrong and that the attorneys didn’t do their job, they didn’t 
make things clear. 
  
SIDE 2) You both have agreed and told me to plead guilty because the laws 
were changing around me and I should have known.  
  
  
So I ask you, where is the justice in this advice?  
  
And for a moment, lets remove the option to plead guilty to avoid going to 
trial [because that does nothing to correct the situation anyway]  
  
  
So I would like to know what are your suggestions to rectify the matter of 
the 2 sides above?  
  
  
Here is another BIG PROBLEM that I see and it is this way because you have 
done nothing to correct it, and by not correcting it, it only has made 
matters worse.  
That is whenever I have presented FACTS that discredits Parker Gillen and 
Froelich’s position, the truth is compromised…..  
  
Here are a few recent examples: 
>The Joint Defense Agreement – I am provided deterrents from getting it (I 
asked that it be subpoenaed. appreciate you asking them for a copy but it is 
too important to rely on them to provide a copy at their leisure ‐ time is of 
the essence) > Recordings of Froelich – I also asked that it be subpoenaed 
but again I am provided deterrents from receiving it.  
  
> The “Conflict of Interest” issue ‐ here again, just more deterrents most of 
them being false. 
  
  
These are only three examples of the many problematic issues that reflect 
that what is in my best interest is not being upheld.  
  
  
I have tried and tried to get you and Mr. Garland to do what is right and 
correct the issues I have brought to your attention in my 26‐page letter. 
Much of it would entail exposing the wrongdoing of Parker, Gillen, and 
Froelich. That has yet to happened and in fact I am only met with more 
resistance and I would be a fool to believe there were any plans to do 
anything about it. Enough time has passed to have at least put forth some 
effort into correcting some of the issues.  
  
My understanding of your email Mr. Samuel is that you feel that you 
already presented everything to the government and nothing more will 
change anything.  
Is that a fair statement?  
  
  
So a question that needs to be answered is whose side are you and Mr. 
Garland on. 
  
And the answer cannot only be in words, it must be with action. I will not 
allow what has happened up until this point, continue to happen. I cannot 
have someone neutral representing me, as no middle ground exists here, so 
being neutral, is being against me.  
  
  
I am sure you have heard the statement that “the truth is piercing and 
sharper than any two‐edged sword” and because of that, the truth is going 
to be extremely painful for those who have chosen to be untruthful. That is 
not a threat, it’s the TRUTH! 
If you and Mr. Garland are not willing to stand with me and expose the 
truth and do so to the degree that it is UNDERSTOOD, then I would 
appreciate your assistance in finalize matters with me.  
  
I have no material things left, so I cannot hire another lawyer, but need to 
make whatever arrangements necessary so I have legal counsel present for 
my meeting with the government on Monday. 
  
  
Everything I have written, I have done with no ill intentions as I have 
accepted things as they are.  
  
Sincerely, 
  
‐Chris Stoufflet