RE: Case Information

Friday, October 10, 2008

2:09 PM

Subject
RE: Case Information
From CMS | CMi cha el Group
To 'Sommerfeld, La wrence (USAGAN)'
Cc 'Don Sa muel'; 'Chartash, Randy (USAGAN)'; 'Brown, Mi chael J. (USAGAN)'; 'Kuykendall, Robert'
Sent Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:50 PM

Thank you for your response.

Please see below:

From: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN) [mailto:Lawrence.Sommerfeld@usdoj.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:18 PM
To: CMS | CMichael Group
Cc: Don Samuel; Chartash, Randy (USAGAN); Brown, Michael J. (USAGAN); Kuykendall, Robert
Subject: RE: Case Information

Mr Stoufflet:

First, let me caution you further. Messrs Garland and Samuel are some of the most well-
respected criminal defense counsels in Atlanta.
[CMS] Yes sir, I understand and that was the reason I hired them but unfortunately, in my case
that hasn’t held to be true.
After many months of presenting the facts that shows that Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen and Mr.
Froelich was fully engaged and advising us accordingly at ALL TIMES, never suggesting that it
was illegal, even after we discontinued the business, Mr. Parker is on record saying that “it is
not illegal, I repeat” etc… and even recently stating “everyone knew there were regulations, but
no one believed it was a Federal Crime of Drug dealing”
Mr. Garland and Mr. Samuel decision to suppress the extent of their involvement and
participation known to your department, and not report the misconduct of their fellow
attorneys, as required by the State Bar of Georgia is very problematic for me. The Rules &
Regulations were written to avoid this type of conduct from happening not to mention they
become participants of the administration of injustice, which is wrong.

There is a undisputable amount of evidence that prove that:

1) I sought legal advice before beginning,
2) Everything was disclosed at all times to the attorneys (there openly shared communications
amongst each other)
3) All legal advice rendered was followed at all times.
In knowing this and that I relied fully on these attorneys to guide and advise to keep us so we
remained on safe grounds by complying with all State and Federal Laws and at some point, face
charges and Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen, and Mr. Froelich decide NOT be forthcoming with your
department, is wrong sir. By placing the fear of God in the clients and having them assume full
responsibility for following the bad faith advice doesn’t have much .
I have failed to see the ethical side of suppressing the conduct that Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen and
Mr. Froelich, instead of reporting this violation of the State Bar of Georgia.
The answer to “the lawyers should have told you” and “you received bad advice”, should not be
in the client assuming full-responsibility and punishment and hide this misconduct of the
advising attorneys from the State Bar.
Making this fact known to your office, so the decision to prosecute is based of the proper
merits, not some cover-up distorted version of the truth from the attorneys.
Mr. Sommerfeld, I realize that this may not be the forum to debate any of these issue, but
these issue need to made known. I have asked Mr. Garland and Mr. Samuel to address the
following issues on numerous occasions and here again these issues have been denied or I have
been provided false deterrents in the hope to avoid the issue completely.
I also to meet with you and Mr. Chartash to discuss these matter before asking to meet with
Judge Cooper.
1) Conflict of Interest Issues with Gillen and Parker
I complained about this issue to Mr. Parker since it first happen in 2006, and no action has
been taken.
In some of my initial meetings and in a number of correspondences with Ed Garland Don
Samuel, I explain what happened and have continued to ask that it be addressed. I

US Attorneys Office Page 1

 accidentally found out about the Campbell case, I brought it the attention of Don Samuel
and he provided me with incorrect information and stall tactics. It was not allowed in the
Campbell case but has been abused in my case.
2) David Levitt : Misrepresentation and Unauthorized Practice of Counsel. For Levitt to be
eligible to practice in my case, it required that he gain Admittance Pro Hac Vice, which he
was not. David Levitt also said he was licensed in Louisiana and practiced early in his
career in New York. Levitt’s Louisiana license was not valid as of the end of last year and
licensed in New York State but he is not in good standings.
David Levitt prepared Motions and is on record of being “Counsel for Chris Stoufflet” on
Garland and Samuel letterhead
3) Plea Terms
The terms in which I was given to accept the Plea –
> deadline of approx 72 hours
> Threat that would not allow me the ability to use the “Advice of Counsel” in court
4) Joint Defense Agreement – I have asked for 2 years to be provided a copy of this
agreement which was executed by Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Froelich, Troy Sobert, Erin
Riggins, and myself. I have asked repeatedly that we request a copy from the court as it
reflects that we all agreed and shared information openly. The attorneys continue to
avoid producing it and ignore my request.
5) Recordings of Joint Defense attorney Jerome Froelich and Troy Sober t.
These recordings that has been played for a number people. The importance in these
recordings is due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Froelich have failed to be
forthcoming with the government as to their involvement and these recording can help
provide information that reflects the truth as to their involvement.
6) Possible Violation of my Bond
Mr. Garland asked for an additional $100K over and above what we originally agreed. He
presented me with a document that I executed that would allow for a 2 nd mortgage on my
property. Knowing the conditions of my bond, I assumed he is required to ask the court
for permission to assume a 2nd mortgage on my property. I do not have any information
that permission was sought or granted.

There are additional issues but the above are probably the most important.

I cannot give you legal advice, but I urge you to consider your position and to reconsider your
dismissal of them.
[CMS] I sent both Mr. Garland and Mr. Samuel a 26-page letter on June 18, Subject :
“Addressing Serious Issues”, and email on June 23 a email Subject “A Cry For Justice Falls of
Deaf Ears” all which have resulted in no attempt to address or correct anything.
Before we made an agreement, the facts that I believed that misconduct of Mr. Parker, Mr.
Gillen, Mr. Froelich would need to be confronted and Mr. Garlands assurance that the
relationship of colleagues would not interfere with the pursuit of justice and all of the above,
and more, had weighed on me tremendously. Considering all of above, no trust remains.
Alternatively, you may retain other counsel.
[CMS] I spent almost every dollar I had left on every dollar on my defense.
If you believe you cannot afford counsel, you may apply to the Court for appointment of
counsel. I strongly suggest you interact with the United States, including myself, AUSA
Chartash, and SA Kukendall through counsel.
[CMS] That is why I asked to meet with you first, before asking to bother the court with this. As
far as representation, I do not need anyone with a great record, just someone who is willing to
tell the truth.

Regarding the matters you raised, you recall that we previously asked for any and all proof of
eScripts obtaining documents to verify height and weight information. To date we have only
received your earlier email message with an attachment containing a few copies of driver’s
license identification. We hereby repeat our request to see any and all information you believe
substantiates your claim that eScripts systematically verified height and weight information. In
particular, we hereby repeat our request that “ you provide all of the drivers licenses you
collected as well as any emails or other correspondence showing that you were requesting and
collecting drivers licenses to verify height and weight information.” Once you have determined
the status of your representation, we would appreciate seeing any and all such materials.
[CMS] here again sir, I didn’t respond directly to you as you suggested but did send numerous
correspondences to Mr. Samuel and asked that he forward those to you. I asked if he did
forward everything to you and was informed that everything was being forwarded.
I inquired about providing this log to you on several occasions. It was in my additional effort
that I took the photos, marked the photos and sent them. EXAMPLE: On Aug 20, in an email I
sent to Mr. Samuel I sent this email because I haven’t heard back about presenting the
Customer Verification log.
“Please forward the attachments, the .zip file are images I took of the customer verification log

US Attorneys Office Page 2

Customer Verification log.
“Please forward the attachments, the .zip file are images I took of the customer verification log
[which I believed to be only from 2001 and we verified orders until we closed]. I have never
heard from Mr. Agent Kuykendall so I could provide it to him and explain.”

Finally, paragraph 13(b) of your plea agreement, executed March 4, 2008, states: “ The
defendant [Chris Stoufflet] agrees to make a full accounting within thirty (30) days of execution
of this Plea Agreement, of all assets in which the defendant owns or owned any interest, either
legal or equitable, at any time between April 1, 2001, and the date of the accounting.”
[CMS] I was in Mr. Garland office when he called and spoke to Mr. Brown about the issues. It
was my understanding that due to the postponement of the Dr.’s case, it would be followed up
on at a later time.
In keeping up to date with what I have been asked to do as it relates to property and assist, I
was working with Mr. Scott Hudson. The last time I spoke to him, he said that we would
resume after the other defendants completed their case.
As you are aware, the remaining defendants in this case have pled guilty and sentencing
hearings are pending. I am not aware your complying with paragraph 13(b) to date and
providing a full accounting.
[CMS] Once again, that conversation was between Mr. Brown and Mr. Garland and will do
whatever is required.
I would like to reassure you that my compliance has never and will never be an issue Mr.
Sommerfeld. I feel that you have a formed a much different interpretation of my willingness to
comply, which here again lies another issues which is far from the truth, and most probably
conveyed through an attorney.
So what has been perceived and the fact that I have ALWAYS been eager to comply are
demonstrated in my efforts, such as:
> My decision to close the business and seek additional information about the legalities
> My request and invitation to have the government (FDA Criminal Division) investigate what
we were doing (and did not have legal representation present)
> My request help in the future
> My belief in my attorneys, Mr. Parker having a long time relationship with this exact
department, in which I made numerous request for him to meet with people in your
department
Considering that you should be able to resolve any representation issues you may have in short
order and that you are already in default of this provision of the plea agreement, , please
provide a full accounting of your assets in accordance with paragraph 13(b) of your plea
agreement within seven days of this correspondence.[CMS] OK, once again, as always I will be
happy to provide anything, but I am not admitting to be in default of 13(b) when I was present
during a phone call, could not hear what was said, but a understanding of it being delayed until
a later date was my understanding.

Thank you and I look forward to discussing how these issues should be addressed.

Sincerely,
-Chris Stoufflet

Thank you.
Larry Sommerfeld

Lawrence R. Sommerfeld
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Northern District of Georgia
404-581-6188
404-581-6181 facsimile
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/

From: CMS | CMichael Group [mailto:cms@cmichaelgroup.com]

Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:52 PM
To: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN)
Cc: 'Don Samuel'; Chartash, Randy (USAGAN); 'Kuykendall, Robert'
Subject: RE: Case Information

Hello Mr. Sommerfeld,

I hope this email finds you and Mr. Chartash both well.

US Attorneys Office Page 3

I hope this email finds you and Mr. Chartash both well.

I appreciate your words of caution, and I take this very seriously. I will reiterate, I fully
understand that any of my communications with anyone from your department, in addition to
any materials I provide, can and will be used against me.
Representation Terminated
The reason I a contacting you is to inform you that last night, with much hurt and serious
disappointment I terminated my relationship with Mr. Garland and Mr. Samuel. At this time, I
do not have anyone, who is legally authorized that I trust.

Avoidance of Responsibility & Failure to be Forthcoming

Mr. Parker, Mr. Gillen, and Mr. Froelcih when meeting with the government asserted a luxury
to tell the government only specific things.
They did not disclosing all relevant information and minimizing the degree of their involvement
should be corrected.

Invisible Transfer off Responsibility

By placing a large amount of fear in his client and confusion, Mr. Gillen, and Mr. Froelcih
provide very well-worded, uniquely-crafted high level explanation that will only
creates confusion. Add to false statements, fake deadlines and a desperate plea to family
members at Christmas, Jerome Froelich was successful in transferring his responsibility to his
client Sobert.

Customer Verification Log

Please let me know if you want me to bring it In closing, I am still eager and have been
prepared to meet with you regarding the information I provided at the last meeting. I hope to
be given an opportunity to answer any of your questions and clear-up any issues. I will be happy
to meet with Mr. Kurkendall and he can relay what he feels relevant back to you.

Sincerely,
-Chris Stoufflet

From: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN) [mailto:Lawrence.Sommerfeld@usdoj.gov]

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:56 AM
To: CMS | CMichael Group
Cc: Don Samuel; Chartash, Randy (USAGAN); Kuykendall, Robert
Subject: RE: Case Information

Mr. Stoufflet:

Please be aware, as we discussed Monday, that any correspondence to the case agent or my
office, as well as any materials you provide, are not protected by any proffer agreement or any
other protection, and can and will be held against you. Accordingly, please consider conducting
any correspondence through your counsel, who I have copied on this message.

Regarding your message, would you please provide documentation of the following:
“I also have the information I want you to be aware of that shows the additional effort we put
into verifying questionable prescription request where we check thousands of customers for
accuracy and would not allow shipment of their order unless we received their drivers licenses
so we could verify height and weight..” In particular, would you provide all of the drivers
licenses you collected as well as any emails or other correspondence showing that you were
requesting and collecting drivers licenses to verify height and weight information. Thank you.

Regards,
Larry Sommerfeld

Lawrence R. Sommerfeld
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Northern District of Georgia
404-581-6188
404-581-6181 facsimile
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/

From: CMS | CMichael Group [mailto:cms@cmichaelgroup.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:38 PM
To: Chartash, Randy (USAGAN); Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN)
Cc: 'Don Samuel'
Subject: Case Information

US Attorneys Office Page 4

Subject: Case Information

Hello Mr. Chartash and Mr. Sommerfeld,

Thank you again for meeting with me on Monday.

I have great concerns upon hearing some of the things you brought to my attention during our
meeting on Monday.
One of the things I recall during the meeting was that the doctors did not review request from
customers from in which the state they were licensed. Is that correct?
We were to have no input into the decision of the physicians or the pharmacies as they were
set up and respected as independents and were to have “NO involvement” in interfering or
persuading a decisions if these independents. This is critical of them being “INDEPENDENT”.
What states, or medication was NEVER our decision for us to make. What medications, what
dosages, and what states the physicians would review prescription requests for was a decision
for the physician, not us! To my knowledge, all physician agreed to the dosages because they
were in according to the FDA prescribing guidelines. It was clear that we were NOT to have any
involvement in the medical making decision process so to tell a physician what state he can
review request for was never ours to make. For you gentlemen to say I knew about this, is
incorrect and the system was not set-up that way, that decision was up to the physician.

If that was being done, then I assume it would be Erin doing so, but he knows better!! The
reason I am saying Erin is because of a couple of instances that happened that I will address
below and also because of Erin did each day. Erin was responsible to make sure that the orders
were reviewed on time as promised. Since we had physicians starting and stopping at various
times or if a physician as not available or behind schedule, orders would be routed to a
available physician.
When I asked Monday “who said this?” I believe someone responded that “I told them” to do
this or that I knew about this…..Is that correct?
I never did such a thing nor did I instruct anyone to do that nor would I have allowed anyone to
it. PLEASE confirm the information you have on this is not Erin saying to others that “Chris said
to do this” or “Chris said it was OK”…because Chris never did no would I have allowed that.

I remember Erin asking me if it was OK if one physician did not approve the prescription
request, could we send it to another physician to get another opinion. This is what we referred
to as a “Second Opinion”. I told Erin to hold off before doing anything and I asked Kilpatrick
Stockton and received the attached response. The answer we received to the question about
“second opinions” is clear and we did not do allow this. When I asked if we could own a
pharmacy, we were advised against that and followed that advice. Erin was made aware of all
of this because I made it a policy to c/c both him and Troy on ALL responses received by the
attorneys.
At some point, I believe after we received the answer about second opinions, I remember
seeing a report that Erin asked Ken to generate. If remember correctly, the report showed the
physicians approval rate was per request. I immediately told him and possibly I told Ken to
hold-off from making that report available, I didn’t think that was appropriate. I emailed that
report to Mr. Parker in which he said to remove it and I asked that it be removed. Erin asking
for that report would be for the purpose of knowing where to route a prescription for a better
chance of approval….WHICH IS WRONG and would not be allowed.
Having medication request sent to a physician that is more likely to approve it is WRONG and
would not be tolerated. Here is something that happened that I immediately addressed. FOR
EXAMPLE, if this was in a clinical setting, that would not be allowed. That is basically scheduling
patients for an appointment with a physician based on the MEDICATION they were seeking.

Erin and Michael Landry were to make sure that the orders were being REVIEWED by the
attending physician not routing prescription request to a physician who is more likely to
approve them.
I also have the information I want you to be aware of that shows the additional effort we put
into verifying questionable prescription request where we check thousands of customers for
accuracy and would not allow shipment of their order unless we received their drivers licenses
so we could verify height and weight..

I have some additional information about the questions I was asked in the meeting about the
affiliates.

Please allow me to answer any additional question you may have.

Thank you,
-Chris Stoufflet

US Attorneys Office Page 5

US Attorneys Office Page 6