September 21st 2009 
 
 
News Media   [generic]                                        
 
RE:  FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ABUSES OF POWER DEPRIVE DUE PROCESS  
US v STOUFFLET: CASES 1:06‐CR‐337 & 1:08‐CR‐082‐1‐CC 
 
 
Dear News Media, 
 
I am contacting you to make you aware of the injustices brought upon me 
by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia that have 
deprived me of Due Process and violated my Constitutional Rights.  
 
In a September 2, 2009 letter to the ACLU of Georgia, my court appointed 
attorney, Lawrence Zimmerman stated:   
 
“My client, prior to my court appointment, hired the finest firms in 
the United States to advise him on the legalities of selling 
pharmaceuticals over the internet. He was from the outset very 
diligent in making sure he was in compliance with all facets of the law 
in each individual State where he conducted his business. 
Furthermore, if he was ever told that it was illegal,  he would 
immediately close his business. At some point, the United States 
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia indicted him for 
being a drug dealer including the doctor's who independently 
contracted with his company. During the case, the government 
argued that Mr. Stoufflet is legally not allowed to raise an advice of 
counsel defense which, as stated above, he clearly spent hundreds of 
thousands of dollars obtaining. Eventually, Mr. Stoufflet who was 
under heavy stress and pressure entered a guilty plea. At this time, 
we are trying to withdraw the plea because Mr. Stoufflet was always 
told by his lawyers that his actions were legal.” 
 

Page 1 of 7
 “Most importantly, the Department of Justice tried a case very similar 
to this one in the Southern District of Florida. After a mistrial, the 
United States Attorney's Office decided to dismiss all charges against 
all defendants based on the fact that they had an advice of counsel 
defense. Thus, I find it unfair that the Department of Justice would 
treat similarly situated defendants in a different manner. Obviously, 
they have taken two opposing legal positions as it relates to these 
cases. Unfortunately, Mr. Stoufflet is being barred from raising an 
advice of counsel defense and is looking at a long time in prison.” 
 
In August 2006, approximately 2 ½ years after voluntarily closing my 
business, I was indicted violating Federal Drug Dealing statutes. In order to 
“fit the crime” and obtain a 51 Count criminal indictment, the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office has concealed evidence, falsified information, and 
misrepresented the “facts.” 
 
The governments’ charges allege from 2001‐2003, the illegal acts occurred. 
During that time‐period, the business was being operated under the 
direction of highly reputable, specialized law firms such as Seyfarth Shaw, 
LLP; Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP; and Arent Fox, LLC. in addition to full‐time 
corporate legal counsel who operated on site from our corporate offices.  
 
My “good‐faith” efforts and willfulness to operate within the bounds of the 
law are well established from the 40 plus lawyers I engaged.1  At no time 
was I informed that the business was illegal, much to the contrary, 
attorneys continued to provide us instrumental key components to 
implement so they business remained compliant with all State and Federal 
Laws.  
 
Oddly enough, this very same U.S. Attorney’s Office had previously in 2001, 
allowed me to continue operating this very same business I have now been 
indicted for.2    

1
 [EXHIBIT A] Flow chart of legal counsel  
2
 A transcript of a R‐41 Hearing regarding my business provides evidence that AUSA Sandy Stropolli, and 
Federal Judge Clayton Scofield agreed to the returning of  business equipment so the business could 
continue operating. Investigation Reports by the FDA Office of Criminal Investigation of this very same 
business concludes no wrongdoings. This investigation was performed at my request. 

Page 2 of 7
 
DISCREDITING THE ALLEGATIONS 
• CONSPIRACY: There is no evidence that support or suggest there was 
any attempt at any time to conspire. There is however overwhelming 
amounts of evidence that disprove and discredit the governments 
allegation of conspiracy in the form of hundreds, possibly thousands 
of “legal invoices” detailing the “work product” provided by the 
lawyers. These invoices, establish the lawyers in‐depth involvement 
in the business, that all issues were disclosed, and that the legal 
advice I received was followed at all times. Thus diminishing any 
possibility a conspiracy ever existed.    
 
• MONEY LAUNDERING: There is no evidence that support or suggest 
there was any attempt at any time launder money. In fact, contrary 
to these charges, a former IRS agent, criminal investigator, Ted 
Robertson performed an independent financial investigation. His 
findings negate the 44 Counts of Money Laundering the government 
alleges. This favorable evidence have been avoided and concealed 
throughout the proceedings.  
 
• MISBRANDING OF DRUGS: There exists no basis for criminal charges 
of “misbranding of drugs.” At no time was I was in possession or had 
any control of the “controlled substances,” therefore, unable to 
cause misbranding. Third party, independent, licensed medical 
doctors and pharmacies, issued and fulfilled prescriptions that were  
that were shipped to the customers in accordance to State and 
Federal Laws. These physicians and pharmacies were licensed and 
authorized by the U.S. Justice Department, DEA. Binding legal 
contracts between the doctors and the pharmacies were adhered to 
at all times. These contracts were crafted and constantly updated by 
the lawyers.    
 
The “legal invoices” referenced above from the law firms unequivocally 
established my conduct as legal.   
¾ The legal invoices disapprove the main Count in the indictment, 
Conspiracy.  

Page 3 of 7
 ¾ If the government contends a conspiracy existed, then they are 
required to include the lawyers because they are considered 
“essential elements” that assisted in the furtherance of the alleged 
crimes.  
¾ Since it defies logic to “conspire” with a lawyer, prosecutors simply 
excluded the lawyers involvement as if they never existed.   
 
This document begins to reveal the extent prosecutors will go to gain a 
conviction.  AUSA Lawrence Sommerfeld and Randy Chartash have 
repeatedly engaged in deception and misrepresentations in my case 
opposed to uphold their duties to seek truth and justice.   
  
I have always maintained my innocence and insisted on proceeding to trial. 
My former defense counsel presented and encouraged me to enter into a 
guilty plea but I refused. The prosecutors were made aware of my 
intentions to proceed to trial on several occasions. If I were found guilty, I 
faced severe punishment, incarceration of 292‐365 months (24‐30 years). 
Even with such harsh exposure, I still insisted on proceeding to trial. Based 
on the vast amount of legal advice I had in my favor, it was with the utmost 
certainty I would be found not guilty and vindicated.  
 
In July 2007, the government demanded I disclose all of my “attorney‐client 
privileged” work‐product so they could adequately prepare for trial. In 
November 2007, as instructed by counsel, I waived the “attorney‐client 
privilege” and provided the government all of my evidence. After several 
delays, and a 1 ½ years of preparation, trial was scheduled for March 10th 
2008. 
 
However, ten days prior to trial, in a sudden‐about‐face, prosecutors barred 
me from my only defense, “advice‐of‐counsel.” The government’s 
misclassifications of alleged crimes, on the eve before trial, forbid me from 
using the legal advice I had received from all the attorneys during all the 
years I operated the business. Removing my ability to assert an “advice‐of‐
counsel” defense, left me defenseless.  
 
 

Page 4 of 7
The governments newfound position was AFTER a nearly 4‐month analysis 
of my all my evidence that they declared, “as a matter of law,” “good –
faith defenses, including advice of counsel,” was not an available defense to 
me. 3    4 
 
The removal of my only defense was coupled with a 72‐hour deadline to 
enter into a guilty plea agreement. The expiration date was intentionally 
set to expire prior to a ruling on the government’s motion.  
 
I was shocked, confused trying to comprehend how this was possible, and 
realizing that my one fair chance to seek justice and be vindicated was 
removed, placed me under immense duress. It was in that state, 
prosecutors rushed me into the courtroom the following morning to plead 
guilty. 
 
The manner in which the government obtained, analyzed, and excluded my 
evidence displays the level of “fairness” prosecutors have chosen to 
conduct themselves throughout the proceedings.   
 
In addition, the prosecutor’s ability to utilize the following two conflicting 
positions, I believe undermines the “fundamental fairness” in which 
criminal proceedings are to be conducted:  
 
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" 
and 
"Advice of counsel is not an available defense" 
 
If one is not learned of the law; how is he to know what is legal and illegal 
and cannot rely on what his lawyers tell him? 
 
Three days after I plead guilty, the Court ruled that the government had 
incorrectly misclassified the crimes and “advice‐of‐counsel” would have 
been an available defense to me. Since March 2008, I have worked 
diligently seeking to have the guilty plea withdrawn so I could be provided a 
3
 02/28/2008 Motion in Limine  (Doc 217) 
4
It is reasonable to believe that the attorneys and law firms would have forewarned me that the legal 
advice was subject to being excluded. At no time was I ever informed or given any reason to believe that 
this was even possible.  

Page 5 of 7
fair trial which includes the terminating of my former counsel, Ed Garland 
and Don Samuel and meeting with the prosecutors to correct their errors. 
Upon hearing I would be seeking to have the guilty plea withdrawn, 
prosecutors have threatened to seek new charges for “obstructing justice” 
rather than acknowledging and correcting misdeeds and allowing me “Due‐
Process.” 
 
I did meet the required criteria necessary to assert an “advice‐of‐counsel” 
defense;5  however, this did not deter prosecutors from excluding my 
“good‐faith” acts as if they never existed.  
 
As a final note, in October 2008, President George W. Bush signed into 
effect “The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008” aka “The 
Ryan Haight Act.” It became effective in April of 2009 and amended the 
chief provisions of the very statues I have been charged of violating and 
held accountable for.  
 
In the passing of this new legislation, it is clear that “Void for Vagueness” 
statues are most applicable. The following statements and statements by 
many other lawmakers have issued similar statements meet the “Void for 
Vagueness” criteria. 
 
 DEA Deputy Assistant Rannazzisi: 
 
[June of 2008]  
“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.” 
 
“The current laws used to police and web, are ambiguous and 
ineffective, so even lawmakers are demanding clarity.”  
 
 

5
1) I sought legal advice before and throughout the time period I conducted business.  
    2) I sought legal advice from highly reputable law firms and competent lawyers in the country.  
    3) I disclosed all pertinent information to legal counsel at all times  
    4) I followed all legal advice rendered at all times. 

Page 6 of 7
 Buddy Parker
LEAD
CRIMINAL ATTORNEY

Laura Ralph Craig Gillen Jerome Froelich Emily Howard

Fenn Gaskins, MD CRIMINAL ATTORNEY CRIMINAL ATTORNEY Streett Young

Clint Gerald Wayne Jefferson

Fletcher Woods Matelski Gray

Mel Darren
Hewitt Traub
Nick Phillip Alan Bob
Stanislo Street Reider Waters
Craig Allison
Bertchi Shuren

Phillip David Tony Jeff

Street Barger Pavel Peters

Tom Phyllis Sarah Deborah

Harney Granade Crispi Shelton

Dorothy Bruce Michael

Adrian Mindy Kirkley Malloy Bowers James Harvey
White Pillow Kaminski Yampolsky

Jeff Rich Roy Rick Mike John Joseph

Archer Hyde Lucas Collins Hemios Nassikas Gatewood
/ LAW OF~ICE:S

LAWRENCE J. ZIMMERMAN. Pc.

SUITE 300

1800 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

OFFICE 404-351-3000 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FAX 404+352-5636 GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF" CRIMINAL DEFENSE: LAWYERS

EMAIL: ll!wJZimm@~hoo.com

June 29, 2009

The Honorable Eric Holder, Esq.

Attorney General of the United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: United State v. Christopher Stoufflet. In the United States Difitdd Court for
the Northern District of GCOI-gia, Atlanta Division;
Case No. 1:08-CR-00082

, Dear Mr. Holder:

My client, Mr. Stouffiet, was indicted and charged in the Northern District of Georgia for
distributing pharmaceuticals on the internet including other charges such as money laundering
i and misbranding of drugs. I am writing Ollt of great concern because your office has taken two
opposite positions in two separate jurisdictions (Northern District of Georgia and the Southern
District of Florida) abollt raising an advice of counsel defense ~~th regards to these operations.
One position resulted in the dismissal of charg~s for one set of defendants and another position in
our jurisdiction has resulted in my client pleading guilty. I would like ta provide you with a brief
background surrounding the issues.

Without going into great detail about the day to day operations of tbe business, m,Y dieM, with
the advice of many lawyers at reputable firms such as Arent Fox and Kilpatrick and Stoe;1;[on, set
up a website where consumers could request prescription weight loss pills fr07!1 a licensed
physician. Once the order was placed, approved prescriptions were forwarded to I icell~d
pharmacies. Because this was sllch a gray area of law at the time, 2001-2003, (Ryan lhighl hill
has since been enacted), Mr. Stouffiet thought it was necessary to seek legal counseL In addition,
Mr. Stouffiet wrote Mr. David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General and the DEA seeking advice.

Over a period of years, Mr. Souffle's stable of lawyers, including his in-house counsel, would
consult with each other to determine what needs to be done in orde, to SlaY in compliance with
all State and Federal laws. When Mr. Stoufflet was indicted, he hired very reputable atturneys.
not my law firm, to defend his case by raising the affirmative defense of advic'" of cOl'llseL As
noted above, with regards to the running of this business, he received a plethora of advice iro7!1
not only his corporate attorneys but also Wilmer "Buddy" Parker, a fanner fed-:ral prosecutor.
The only reason he had these numerous lawyers was to remain in compli~U1ce w~th CLlrrent law.
Once his case was ready for trial, the Government filed a motion in limine to exc1ucie his deL~,nse
 of advice of counsel arguing that it was barred from being raised against general intent crimes.
And, according to the prosecution, this was a crime of general intent. Ther•. Mr. Stouffle! was
given a deadline to accept or reject it prior to the court's ruling. After feeling very pressured with
the government moving to exclude his sole defense, he believed, once he conferred with his
defense team, that he was left with no choice but to enter into a guilty plea. The Court rendered
its ruling for the remaining defendant that advice of counsel is a defense and can be raioed at
trial.

Subsequently, Mr. Stoufflet terminated the lawyers who had represented him becauss he was
unhappy with the situation. At that point, the Honorable Court appointed me to represcnt him
due to the fact that he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. We are stili in Ole middle of
evidentiary hearings and not due to return to court wltil September 2009. In the interim. the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was prosecuting another web
based pharmaceutical case alleging conspiracy to distribute. See United States. v. Hewandg,
Case No. 07-60027-CR-ZLOCH. It is my understanding that the facts and circumstances of this
case are very similar to my client's situation. As a matter of fact, the prosecution in the
Hernandez case also filed the same motions in limine to exclude advice of counsel defenses. The
Hernandez case went to a jury trial and resulted in a mistrial after some of the jurors were caught
conducting research about the case on the internet.

Eventually, this case was set for a jury trial again, except stunningly, the United States
Attorney's Office decided to dismiss all charges against not only the defendant', awaiting re-
trial, but they moved to vacate the prior guilty pleas of the other defendants who did not have a
jury trial. See enclosed COPy of United States' Motion to Dismiss Indictment. According to the
court order and the defense lawyers, it was based on the fact that those defendanTS had an advice
of counsel defense. Thus, as I stated in at the beginning of my Jetter, this has caused me great
concern about these similarly situated defendants being treated dissimilarly by the United States
Department of Justice.

Although the prosecutors in our case may ethically and legally prosecute my clienl, he should not
be treated differently than other defendants just because they arc in a dilkrenl dislrj(~i. By
prosecuting someone who has relied on his lawyer's advice is extremely unjust; the rea~.()n my
client sought legal counsel was to avoid any civil andlor criminal legal issues Why would
anyone seek out an attorney if they cannot rely on that advice? This was a very complex matter
which required attorneys specializing in the field of health care law to render advice. Rf?ccntly,
your office discussed not prosecuting any CIA interrogators surrounding torture becal;s~ they
were advised by lawyers that this was legal. I believe my client should be accorded the same
treatment as everyone else since be too relied on legal counsel. Therefore. I mn respeclfully
asking that you look into this issue.

~o_u."rs~,......,,.,,...:::.-c
LawrenceJ. erman