Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

SUPPORTING TIMELINE

TIMEFRAME: Beginning around the issuance of the Arent Fox June 5 2002 letter to general counsel Mel Hewitt and Darren Traub 1

2002

4/24/2002: [ARENT FOX INTERNAL EMAIL]

devise strategy” and “ writeup format for state laws/regulations

4/24/2002: [ARENT FOX INTERNAL EMAIL]

Reveal lawyers discussed and considered “risk” opted to allow us to continue [“ the level of risk the company faces and should any action be taken other than waiting”]

04/25/2002: [ARENT FOX INTERNAL MEMO]

Extensive revising of the “Patient Responsibility Statement” and “Informed Consent” utilized in every transaction.

05/14/2002: [ARENT FOX INTERNAL EMAIL]

Relative statutory and regulatory language” provided in “HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW RISK scale

05/22/2002: [PARKER & ARENT FOX]

Conference call with Buddy Parker

05/22/2002: [PARKER]

Parker instructs Arent Fox during a conference call they can assist in future endeavors ” but clear matters with him

05/28/2002: [ARENT FOX INTERNAL EMAIL]

Reiterates advice provided to Buddy Parker

1 Government used as an Exhibit in their last motion]

06/20/2002: [ARENT FOX EMAIL TO ESCRIPTS GENERAL COUNSEL]

strongly recommend eScripts discontinue doing business in Nevada (immediately complied)

07/02/2002: [ESCRIPTS GENERAL COUNSEL MEMO]

Arent Fox phone call with general counsel Traub reveals no references to an illegal business or stopping the business. They do request final written proposal on new business model so they can “bless it”

08/2002: [SEYFARTH SHAW] INVOICE # 810467

Research sales tax requirements for prescription pharmaceutical sales and income tax filing requirements Prepares memo on sales tax on pharmaceuticals in specific states

08/23/2002: [ESCRIPTS GENERAL COUNSEL TRAUB TO PARKER, GILLEN, & FROELICH]

Traub informs Parker, Gillen, and Froelich via letter a statement he issued to Marietta Daily Journal that stated eScripts complied to with all State and Federal law s .”

09/09/2002: [KILPATRICK STOCKTON BERTSCHI]

criminal attorney Buddy Parker is on record stating that he believed “nothing would come of the criminal investigation” 2

11/2002: [KILPATRICK STOCKTON] INVOICE # 10592172

Review and discussions with Buddy Parker regarding Marietta Daily Journal article

11/2002: [SEYFARTH SHAW] INVOICE # 826794

2 IMPORTANT: this was approx three months after receiving the letter from Arent Fox of the “real risk of enforcement” a conference call with Arent Fox

Cunningham conducts live training for accepting orders via phone Cunningham conference call with Arent Fox attorneys to discuss accepting orders via phone Works from our office Deliver Arent Fox internet medical law state surveys to Traub Cunningham assist in prepared statement for press Conference call with Arent Fox about compliance related issues

12/2/2002: [PARKER]

Parker informs an attorney for a competitor that I told him the issue was not you, but whether the doctors were lawfully practicing medicine

2003

01/15/2003: PHARMACY BAGGAGE LANGUAGE (APPROVED BY ARENT FOX)

IMPORTANT: READ THIS: BY OPENING THIS PACKAGE, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE READ THE CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT AND THE INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT, HAVE ACCEPTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN, UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING ON YOU, AND HAVE TRUTHFULLY COMPLETED THE MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT – PLEASE CONTACT OUR CUSTOMER CARE REPRESENTATIVES TO RETURN THIS PACKAGE Good reason to believe this was not presented to the Grand Jury

01/13/2003: GENERAL COUNSEL TRAUB TO PARKER

Letter referencing a subpoena by a pharmacy who had contracted with us in relation to a order that was denied by a physician based upon a customer’s BMI (body mass index)

01/30/2003: [KILPATRICK STOCKTON] INVOICE # 10592172

Co defendant Sobert approves and issues check for $3,991.59

02/26/2003: FAX SENT TO BUDDY PARKER AT GILLEN, PARKER, & WITHERS

Referencing this provision in the Informed Consent: “eScripts will take reasonable steps to insure that its Participating/ Providers and affiliate pharmacies comply with any applicable laws or regulations imposed by state or federal government.”

02/27/2003: DRUG MANUFACTURE REBATES

Letters from LRA Marketing for Amide Pharmaceuticals

03/06/2003 : [TRAUB]

[PROVIDES LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS] 3 Terminology provided by general counsel and forwarded to Parker and Arent Fox 06/10/2003: [ARENT FOX] INVOICE #915241

Review and provided updates to the affiliate marketing legal agreements

06/17/2003: [ARENT FOX]

“this is how the staff responds to questions or concerns about the medication.”

3 Virtual Wellness Network, Inc. (“VWN”) is a management service organization that has service contracts with VWN eMedical Group, LLC, which has contacts with U.S. licensed physicians, VWN ePharmacies, LLC, which has contacts with U.S. licensed pharmacies, and Customer Care Solutions, an all inclusive call center. VWN offers use of all of these services to eScripts.MD, LLC. E Scripts, through its proprietary website, www.escriptsmd.com, assists on line patients find licensed U.S. physicians to review a physician prepared medical questionnaire form in order to obtain a prescription for certain “lifestyle choice pharmaceuticals.” When a customer accesses e Scripts’ website, the customer is able to review Information related to the different pharmaceuticals offered via the website. The customer then fills out an online medical history and application. This information is sent, via the internet, directly to a U.S. licensed physician. Any prescription is written pursuant to the physician’s professional medical opinion and is then prepared, recorded, filled, and shipped by a U.S. licensed pharmacy. If, in the physician’s sole medical opinion such prescription is inappropriate for the requesting patient, the physician is free to decline the requested medication. Nowhere in the process does any employee of E Scripts, or any other nonmedical personnel, assist in the determination of whether a patient should receive any medication or actually prepare or ship the medication. Such decisions are left exclusively to the doctor and the pharmacy. E Scripts does, however, assist in protecting against fraudulent requests by following a series of internal safeguards. Each E Scripts.MD customer must warrant as follows: that all personal information provided is complete, true, and accurate; that he or she is over the age of 21; that he or she has received a recent physical examination by his or her own primary care physician; and that, upon receipt of any medication, he or she will promptly update his or her primary care physician with respect to such medication. In order to advertise its website, eScripts utilizes a national affiliate program. Under this program, each affiliate, of which there are currently over 2000, is assigned a referral number. Every time a customer orders from eScripts under the affiliate’s referral number, that affiliate is sent a certain percentage of the order. E Scripts is the only company in the industry to offer a full time affiliate department, including

Discussed affiliate related issues

07/28/2003: [KILPATRICK STOCKTON] INVOICE #10637299

Review Drug manufactures and pharmacy rebates Review procedures in accepting orders via telephone Codefendant Sobert approved and issued check for legal services $6,043.50

07/30/2003: [ARENT FOX]

review Informed Consent

0814 2003: [Co defendants Sobert and Riggins]

Approve payment for legal services and dually execute a check to Arent Fox for INVOICE #915241 check for legal services Arent Fox $12,549.70

08/29/2003: [SEYFARTH SHAW] INVOICE # 895509

Conference call with eScripts principals regarding Operating Agreement

09/11/2003: [ARENT FOX] INVOICE #918889

Legal services approved by co defendant Sobert and payment issued for

$6,582.50

09/15/2003: [SEYFARTH SHAW] INVOICE #902820

Legal services which included revised Operating Agreement and MEMO to CPA Verner for $1,365.00

11/13/2003: [ARENT FOX] INVOICE #923882

Legal services approved and payment issued for $3,081.00

10/20/2003: [PARKER] INVOICE #918889

“reiterate eScripts.MD's continued commitment to lawful and ethical business practices” “As an affiliate of eScripts MD, you can rest assure that we will continue to remain in compliance and keep up with the ever changing regulations. We are constantly working with our outstanding team of legal experts to ensure and protect our position in the industry and, most important, our plans for the future.

“We, on the other hand, have always taken a safe approach in our business decisions.”

10/23/2003: [ARENT FOX] INVOICE #927356

Legal services provided and check #12133 for $403.00

11/06/2003: [PARKER]

“As you are well aware, we have always worked closely with our attorneys regarding the legalities of this industry. Due to the recent policy enacted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency concerning customers obtaining prescriptions based solely on an online medical questionnaire, we have decided to discontinue access submit such request.”

11/17/2003: [PARKER]

“You cannot state “….still derive profits from this type of illegal activity.” The activity has not, I repeat not been found to be “illegal” per se.”

2004

02/11/2004: [KILPATRICK STOCKTON] INVOICE #10679366

2008

02/21/2008: [SAMUEL INTERVIEW PARKER]

Buddy says that everybody realized the regulatory issues, but nobody thought it was a federal crime of drug dealing .”

02/23/2008: [SAMUEL INTERVIEW PARKER AND HEWITT]:

Buddy and Mel Hewitt are prepared to say that they received all, or most of the correspondence from Arent Fox

03/03/2008: [SAMUEL INTERVIEW TRAUB]

He knew what the company did and did not think it was illegal but that was why we hired Buddy Parker and Arent Fox

Never assumed it was illegal read the letter fro Arent Fox, at best it’s a gray area Never saw a document that said it was illegal

ATTORNEY’S ACTS DISCREDITS, CONTRADICTS, STOUFFLET’S BELIEF OF ENFORCEMENT AND RECONFIRMS BELIEF IS COMPLAINT

1) The law firm of Arent Fox continued to provide compliance related legal advice for the next 15 months (until “WE” voluntarily closed the business)

2) Kilpatrick Stockton, Seyfarth Shaw, Mel Hewitt, Darren Traub, all continued to provide compliance related legal advice.

3) At no time did any attorney withdraw from providing us representation because it posed a risk criminal sanctions.

4) If Arent Fox’s letter was misinterpreted, they are required to provide us in “clear and unmistakable language” what action we were to take

5) General counsel (In house) legal counsel Hewitt and Traub is on record stating that they had no knowledge or was ever told by Arent Fox or Kilpatrick Stockton that the business was “illegal.”