Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
FALSE STATEMENTS
GOVERNMENT’S FACT
FALSE STATEMENTS
“No one associated with the defendants checked the accuracy of the Stoufflet dedicated and entire department to customer verifications –
information customers provided, including their identities, ages, and Thousands of Orders were placed on‐hold or canceled unless customer
qualifying medical conditions, such as weight” information was verified through legitimate sources.
(Doc. 1 08/08/2006) (drivers licenses collected)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ¾ Certain employees’ job description was manual review all orders
“The doctors who distributed the controlled substances did not meet screening for possible abuse.
nor speak with the customers, nor was customer information ¾ Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on software
confirmed, other than the validity of the customers’ payment applications developed by in‐house programmers under my
information.” direction to screen for possible abuse.
(Doc 149 03‐14‐2007) ¾ Thousands of orders were declined for possible abuse.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Even if the CSA, related case law, and § 1306.04 do not outline all of 09/19/2008: Stoufflet meets with AUSA Sommerfeld and Chartash and
the potential ways in which illegitimate prescriptions can be FDA SA Kuykendall and provides them hundreds of verifications.
recognized, the conduct here, authorizing thousands of orders of
controlled substance drugs to people Defendants never saw, touched, [SAMUEL] “Various safeguards were installed in Mr. Stoufflet 's system
examined, talked to, or had any reason to believe were who they to prevent patients from abusing the prescription process, such as
claimed to be, lies far from any possible vague grey area.” preventing requests for refills too quickly or using anonymous names
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
in the application process.”
“No one associated with the conspirators checked the accuracy of
information customers provided, including their identities, ages, and
[SAMUEL] “Efforts were made by the company to ascertain the
qualifying medical conditions, such as weight.”
Page 1 of 3
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
(Doc 1 03‐04‐2008 ) accuracy of information provided by customers. There are notebooks
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ full of "verifications" that were required if there was any indication in
“None of the participants determined the accuracy of the information the customer's application that warranted further review. Employees
provided by the customers.” of the company were tasked with ensuring that information was not
GOVERNMENT'S CLARIFICATION forged or that customers were not providing accurate information.”
“The operation of the website in this fashion, blatantly enabling drug (PSR 10‐2008)
seekers to alter and manipulate basic information such as height and
weight, was readily observable on the website, including to the doctors 09/23/2009: SA Bob Kuykendall admitted to the customer verifications
who agreed to approve the dispensing of controlled substances based during the Court proceedings:
on such unverified information.” A. Well, towards the end of the meeting he also talked about
(PSR 10‐2008) things that he did or that e‐Scripts did, I guess, at his
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ direction to assure that they were taking accurate information
The doctors who distributed the controlled substances did not meet from customers ordering drugs online.
nor speak with the customers, nor was customer information Q. Was he asked to provide ‐‐
confirmed, other than the validity of the customers' payment A. He was.
Q. ‐‐ of that? And did he provide documentation of that?
information. Id
A. On the subsequent meeting in September he did.
(Doc. 274 08/19/2008)
Q. So in September he provided documentation of that?
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A. He did.
“Most egregious, the questionnaire permitted customers to repeatedly Q. What did he provide?
change their heights and weights, and then' recalculated BMI A. Well, there were other things that he was asked that he
automatically. The operation of the website in this fashion, blatantly provided but it was based on our previous conversation as ‐‐
enabling drug seekers to alter and manipulate basic information such well, to directly answer your question, he provided us a binder
as height and weight, was readily observable on the website, including that showed copies of drivers' licenses of patients ‐‐ of
to the doctors who agreed to approve the dispensing of controlled customers. There were approximately 37.
substances based on such unverified information.”
[GOV’S OBJECTIONS STOUFFLET PSR 10‐20‐2008] The evidence proves were thousands of verifications, not just 37.
“Like a number of the assertions made by the Defendant, his claim that 10/31/2008: STOUFFLET/SAMUEL EMAIL
he was given a 72‐hour ultimatum is false and grossly misleading, in a [SAMUEL] IT IS TRUE THAT, AT THE END, WE WERE GIVEN 72
calculated effort to attempt to create an issue where none exists.” HOURS TO DECIDE.
[Doc 19 Page 3]
"Defense counsel himself noted during the plea that the government's Mr. Garland did state the Motion remained pending:
motion to exclude the advice of counsel defense remained pending."
(Doc 19 Page 23) STATEMENT DURING GUILTY PLEA PROCEEDING
[GARLAND] "The government filed a brief this week pointing
out that this crime is a general intent crime." (Tr. 29‐30)
Page 2 of 3
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
“Indeed, the Defendant admits he did all the acts the United States Stoufflet insisted that Zimmerman d removed allegations that he
alleges.” agreed to the acts the governments alleged. Zimmerman informs
[Document 19 03/20/2009 Page 22] Stoufflet that he was the lawyer and the Motion would be filed as he
choose and proceeds against Stoufflets’ objections.
“Paul Southern was an agent with the Office of Criminal Investigation, Testimony of Agent Paul Southern is pertinent and applicable. The
Food and Drug Administration. He was the original case agent that evidence substantiates SA Southern’s involvement and investigation
gave rise to this investigation. He no longer works for the Food and was performed under the FDA OCI (Office of Criminal Investigations)
Drug Administration. The government believes based upon and part of the record.
information from counsel for defendant Hollis that they believe that, if “The Affiant told Stoufflet that based upon the information he
called to testify, SA Southern would testify that in or around January provided the Affiant, his operation appeared to be in compliance with
2001 he told Chris Stoufflet, the principal owner of eScripts, that the FDA laws and regulations in that a physician was personally reviewing
business model of prescribing drugs over the Internet was not illegal. the questionnaires (sic) and personally signing the prescriptions.”
The government believes that such testimony is irrelevant to the issues (See Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant)
in this case.”
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“SA Southern’s personal opinion regarding legality should be excluded
because of intervening clarification of the law, even if the defense
could show SA Southern’s opinions were communicated to the
Defendant. SA Southern’s testimony is irrelevant, and any probative
value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfairly prejudice, such
as undue delay and confusion of issues before the jury.”
(Doc 274 08/19/2008 Page 3)
“Defendant disputes none of the essential facts of the case.” It is on record that Stoufflet has protested many issues in this case
(Doc. 19 03/20/2009 Page 2) since the onset and counsel has repeatedly failed to raise these issues.
Page 3 of 3