{"id":10438,"date":"2012-10-25T06:00:39","date_gmt":"2012-10-25T11:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/?p=10438"},"modified":"2015-06-10T13:30:09","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T18:30:09","slug":"medifast-lawyers-lie-to-the-court-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/medifast-lawyers-lie-to-the-court-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Medifast Lawyers Lie to the Court (Again)"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPDATE: <\/strong>On February 17, 2010, Medifast Inc. filed suit<\/a> in US District Court, Southern District of California, alleging defamation, violation of California Corporations Code, and unfair business practices. On March 29, 2011, Judge Janis Sammartino dismissed<\/strong> all of Medifast’s claims against me in her ruling on my anti-SLAPP motion<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In the never-ending saga of Medifast Inc\u2019s $270 million lawsuit against me for defamation<\/a> related to their Take Shape for Life division (TSFL), the company and its lawyers have repeatedly lied to the court about what I have said, written, and done. Apparently, this is the only way they think they might win their case. Thankfully, the judge saw through their lies and dismissed me from the case under California\u2019s anti-SLAPP legislation.<\/p>\n

That hasn\u2019t stopped Medifast from continuing the lies<\/a>, however. And the company appears to be upset over my writings about the lawsuit. Management and the attorneys have falsely stated that I am writing about this case to get publicity for myself. The truth is that I write about this case to expose the lies and shady litigation procedure employed by the company.<\/p>\n

I do not believe a company like Medifast should be allowed to commit these acts in the dark of night. I want to expose management and the attorneys for the liars that they are<\/a>, so the whole world can see it.<\/p>\n

This lawsuit has been ongoing for nearly three years.\u00a0 <\/a>Medifast refuses to accept the fact that I did not defame the company, and that the judge wholly agreed. The judge ruled in my favor on the anti-SLAPP motion, saying<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Under California law, recovery for defamation may be had only for false statements of fact. Statements of opinion are not actionable\u2026 The critical determination of whether the allegedly\u00a0 defamatory statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law\u2026 The key is not parsing whether a published statement is fact or opinion, but \u2018whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of
\nfact\u2026<\/p>\n

Problematically though, Medifast does not plead the exact words constituting the alleged defamation\u2026 Rather, as Minkow argues, Medifast paraphrases Defendants\u2019 statements in its pleadings, seemingly for maximum shock value. (Minkow Reply 1.) Of the thirty-seven allegedly false statements identified in Medifast\u2019s opposition\u2014which Medifast calls \u201cthe more egregious statements made by each Defendant\u201d (Opp\u2019n 41)\u2014most regard the structure and function of TSFL\u2019s compensation system. (See id. 41\u201344.) These statements do not charge Medifast with commission of a crime, nor are they otherwise defamatory without the necessity of explanatory matter; accordingly, they cannot support Medifast\u2019s claim for libel per se. Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 45a\u2026<\/p>\n

Medifast\u2019s allegations suffer from a fatal flaw: Defendants\u2019 statements cannot reasonably be understood as implying the provably false assertion of fact Medifast claims they imply, namely, that Medifast is running a Ponzi scheme. If Defendants had said, \u201cMedifast, like Bernie Madoff, is running a Ponzi scheme,\u201d one could scarcely dispute that Defendants would be liable for defamation\u2026 Similarly if Defendants had said, \u201cMedifast runs its business like Bernie Madoff.\u201d But Defendants\u2019 actual statements were not nearly so explicit. Contrary to Medifast\u2019s apparent contention, Defendants did not accuse Medifast of running a Ponzi scheme by simply using \u201cMedifast\u201d and \u201cMadoff\u201d in the same breath. Rather, the context of Defendants\u2019 statements shows that they used Madoff as a contemporary cautionary tale. (See, e.g., Cohen Decl. ISO Opp\u2019n Ex. 61, at 7 (\u201cLike . . . Madoff\u2019s secret trading system, Medifast dazzles its prospects with the classic and indecipherable MLM pay plan, showing the potential of an income with \u2018no cap.\u2019\u201d).) If any statement of fact can be implied from Defendants\u2019 statements, it is this: Things at Medifast are not what they seem. Such a statement is too inexact or subjective to support a libel per se claim; no reasonable person could construe it to be provably false.<\/p>\n

Viewing Defendants\u2019 statements in their context, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Defendants accused Medifast of running a Ponzi scheme<\/strong>. Accordingly, Minkow\u2019s and Coenen\u2019s motions are GRANTED<\/strong> as to these statements.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The judge further ruled:<\/p>\n

Medifast also alleges that Defendants accused Medifast of \u201ccommitting securities fraud, and using their one-office auditing firm to cover up the fraud\u2014their one-office accounting firm that was illegally pumping MED stock to their clients.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n

Similarly, in a post on the Fraud Files blog maintained by the Defendants Coenen and Sequence, Inc., Coenen cited Minkow and FDI\u2019s press release and opined:<\/p>\n

[Medifast] is audited by Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Company. The audit partner happens to also be a part of BJL Weath Management, an investment firm with the same address as the audit firm. This becomes interesting when you consider that BJL Wealth Management recommended the purchase of Medifast stock to an operative of FDI. Is this a conflict of interest? It may be. Does the audit partner, in his role at the investment firm, make recommendations regarding Medifast stock? Does he have any financial interest in transactions involving Medifast stock? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the audit partner would have compromised his independence\u2026<\/p>\n

Medifast makes a prima facie showing that the initial statement\u2014that BJL recommended the purchase of Medifast stock to an FDI operative\u2014is false\u2026 That this statement is false, however, is not dispositive; the allegation that Medifast\u2019s outside auditor recommended the purchase of Medifast stock is not defamatory without the necessity of explanatory matter\u2026<\/p>\n

As to the remainder of Defendants Minkow and Coenen\u2019s statements, the Court finds that they do not imply that Medifast committed securities fraud by colluding with its accounting firm to \u201cillegally pump[] MED stock.\u201d (Opp\u2019n 37.) In context, Coenen\u2019s statement only expresses her opinion that the audit partner might have a conflict of interest<\/strong>\u2014an opinion that is dependent on the existence of additional facts.<\/p>\n

No reasonable factfinder could conclude that Defendants Minkow and Coenen accused<\/strong> Medifast of committing securities fraud through collusion with its accounting firm.<\/strong> Accordingly, Minkow\u2019s and Coenen\u2019s motions are GRANTED as to these statements.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the slow-moving appeal process, Medifast and its attorneys Lainie Cohen and Robert Giacovas make many false statements about my actions. I am going to go through them point-by-point in order to expose the falsity:<\/p>\n

1. Unable to respond to the legal arguments contained in Medifast and MacDonald\u2019s opening brief Minkow, Coenen and FitzPatrick3 all apply the same tactics\u2013attack the credibility of Medifast (and its attorneys) and apply fundamentally-false assertions of the law on defamation to obfuscate their liability for their direct statements of criminal conduct. Once the vitriol is stripped away, there is little left to Defendants\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n

As has been pointed out on this blog several times, the credibility of the company and its attorneys is at issue. The company and its attorneys have repeatedly lied to the court, and they do so again in this filing.<\/em><\/p>\n

2. Minkow and Coenen, who use similar tactics, repeated the same accusations of criminal conduct made by FitzPatrick, and made other direct statements that libeled Medifast.<\/p>\n

I did not accuse Medifast or TSFL of criminal conduct, nor did I make any direct statements that constituted libel. This has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout the litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 Minkow made money on the scheme by shorting Medifast stock and paid Fitzpatrick and Coenen well for their \u201cexpertise\u201d in bolstering his false attacks.<\/p>\n

As was discovered during my deposition, I was paid $1,500 to $2,500 for my work on the Medifast investigation. Despite that information,\u00a0 Medifast continues to falsely claim that I was paid $14,000 for my work, which they say means I was \u201cpaid well.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

4. Coenen is not entitled to CDA immunity because her post, which included FitzPatrick\u2019s January 2010 Update libeling Medifast, went well beyond mere republishing. Coenen\u2019s contributions to and analysis of FitzPatrick\u2019s post make her an \u201cinformation content provider\u201d and \u201cresponsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet…\u201d 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(f)(3).<\/p>\n

I did not contribute to FitzPatrick’s report<\/a>. I reviewed the report prior to it being published by Fraud Discovery Institute, and made a few comments about the report. I had no control over how my comments were used or whether they were incorporated into the final report. I did not write any portion of the report, nor did I have any editing capabilities over the report. Indeed, as Medifast is well aware, I was simply a republisher when I posted FitzPatrick\u2019s report on my site.<\/em><\/p>\n

5. Everything about Coenen\u2019s forensic accounting expert website where her statements accusing Medifast of committing crimes were posted would lead a reasonable reader to believe that Coenen was stating facts\u2013not her opinion.<\/p>\n

I never accused Medifast of committing crimes. And being an expert in something doesn’t preclude an individual from forming and expressing an opinion about it. The expertise does not turn the opinion into a fact.<\/em><\/p>\n

6. These allegations make clear that what Medifast alleged as defamatory was always Defendants\u2019 unequivocal statements asserting that: \u201cTSFL operates as an endless chain or pyramid scheme\u201d and \u201cviolates California Penal Code Chapter 9 \u00a7 327\u201d ER34lines22-23; \u201cthat Medifast is similar to Bernie Madoff\u2019s massive Ponzi scheme\u201d, ER35line12; that \u201cMedifast is a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme and is in violation of the laws of California\u2026\u201d ER36lines23-24; that Coenen continued the attacks with her blog entitled \u201cMedifast and Take Shape For Life: Weight loss pyramid scheme?\u201d and made false statements that \u201cTSFL is a pyramid scheme\u201d, ER38lines18-22.<\/p>\n

I never made any of the statements that are listed in quotes by Medifast and its attorneys. What I did say is that the evidence I have seen leads me to this opinion: \u201cEverything points to the real deal being endless chain recruitment into a pyramid scheme.\u201d Whether\u00a0 a multi-level marketing company is a pyramid scheme<\/a> is purely a matter of opinion (not fact), and is hotly debated on the internet at large.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

7. There is no indication that what Coenen is writing on her blog should not be taken seriously\u2013the average reader would assume they were reading the statements of an expert providing objective facts, not subjective opinion or \u201cobservations\u201d. CRB36. Coenen presents herself as someone with authority. Readers will give deference to her claimed expertise, and assume she speaks the truth.<\/p>\n

Medifast admitted earlier in this filing that the blog on my website includes the tagline \u201c\u2026daily commentary on frauds, scandals, scams, and court cases.\u201d The word \u201ccommentary\u201d clearly indicates to readers that I give my opinion in my writings there. Opinions are not verifiable statements of fact, thus there can be no truth or falsity to them.<\/em><\/p>\n

8.\u00a0 However, Coenen\u2019s false statements do not gain First Amendment protection simply by placing them on a blog. Her accusations of criminal activity are provably false assertions of fact. There is nothing \u201cloose, figurative or hyperbolic\u201d about language accusing an individual of committing a crime, and the fact that they appeared on a blog does not \u201c\u2018negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining that [the individual] committed the crime[.]\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

No false statements were made about Medifast. In nearly three years, the company has yet to prove that even ONE statement I made about it was a false statement of fact. The company and its attorneys falsely claim that I made \u201caccusations of criminal activity,\u201d when no such statements were ever made by me. (Medifast continues to repeat this theme, despite its falsity.)<\/em><\/p>\n

9.\u00a0 The allegation that TSFL is a pyramid scheme is either true or false\u2013it is an objective, provable fact.<\/p>\n

Not true. Whether something is a pyramid scheme is a matter of opinion, and that is clear when one explores the ongoing heated debate over whether multi-level marketing companies are pyramid schemes. <\/em><\/p>\n

There is no single definition of a pyramid scheme. Hence, people come to different conclusions about whether MLMs are actually pyramid schemes. Some supporters of multi-level marketing companies point to government inaction against these companies as proof that they are not illegal pyramid schemes. Yet the inaction only proves that there is inaction, not that there is no illegal activity being committed. And the debate continues over the nature of MLM.<\/em><\/p>\n

10.\u00a0 Unable to refute Bell, Coenen claims that Bell\u2019s declaration only addressed FitzPatrick\u2019s statements and so it cannot establish the falsity of her statements; and it is inadmissible anyway. CRB40. This is just absurd. Coenen called TSFL a pyramid scheme. Bell\u2019s declaration goes into great detail as to how TSFL is not a pyramid scheme.<\/p>\n

Medifast takes the opinions of Daniel Bell, an individual closely affiliated with Medifast, and falsely claims they are fact. Bell is of the opinion that Medifast is not a pyramid scheme. This does nothing to prove whether my opinion of the company’s structure is true or false, because opinions cannot be proven true false.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this regard, my appeal brief stated the following:<\/em><\/p>\n

Medifast did not present evidence establishing that Coenen\u2019s statements were actually false. A statement is not false for defamation purposes if it is substantially true; it must be provably false\u2026 A statement that is too vague or subjective to be proven true or false is also not actionable\u2026\u00a0 In addition, a statement viewed in its full context must convey a statement of fact, not opinion. What constitutes a statement of fact in one context may be treated as a statement of opinion in another, in light of the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

In the opposition to the SLAPP motion, as here, Medifast relies on proprietary data \u2013 that health coaches make money through sales, not recruiting \u2013 to try to prove that the Appellees\u2019 statements were false\u2026\u00a0 However, Medifast did not publish such information until it filed the opposition. And, the only so-called evidence Medifast cites in support of the falsity of the allegedly libelous statements is an unsupported and unqualified hearsay declaration of Daniel Bell\u2026 The declaration neither establishes that Bell is an expert nor submits any documents to support Bell\u2019s statements and opinions. The declaration also solely disputes FitzPatrick\u2019s reports, not the statements Coenen made\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Regardless, Bell\u2019s declaration does not change the fact that Coenen\u2019s statements are not libel; Coenen\u2019s opinion on TSFL\u2019s structure and business model was based on an analysis of those documents publicly available at the time\u2026 To the extent Medifast now contends that it has information that demonstrates the falsity of Coenen\u2019s statements, the majority of the information Medifast (and, specifically, Bell) relies upon \u2013 private corporate information \u2013 would never have been known and was not made available to Coenen until late December 2010, almost one year after this lawsuit was filed\u2026 In fact, even in Medifast\u2019s press releases responding to FDI\u2019s reports, Medifast did not offer any facts to demonstrate that the statements being made were false\u2026 It is difficult to comprehend how Coenen could be held liable for not knowing information Medifast was withholding or not disclosing. She could not have relied on or analyzed materials and statements that were not publicly available.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

11. Even giving Coenen the benefit of the \u201ctotality of circumstances\u201d test, her rhetorical question asking whether TSFL is a pyramid scheme, and then providing her \u2018evidence\u2019 as to why the answer can only be \u201cyes,\u201d shows that Coenen clearly implied a provably-false statement of fact.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, I provided information in support of my opinion about pyramid schemes. My writings did not state or imply that \u201cthe answer can only be \u201cyes\u201d.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

12. Coenen repeatedly claims Medifast \u201cmakes a far stretch when it tries to link Coenen\u2019s statements to FitzPatrick\u2019s in order to hold Coenen liable.\u201d CRB31. More specifically, she claims that she \u201cnever accused Medifast of violating Penal Code \u00a7 327 and has never stated that Medifast operates as a criminal enterprise.\u201d CRB33. Both of these statements are demonstrably-false.<\/p>\n

Indeed, it is a far stretch because I never accused Medifast of violating any Penal Code, nor did I even imply that such was the case. I never made any allegations or assumptions about criminal activity, and simply providing FitzPatrick’s report (which does make such an allegation) to readers does not mean that I endorse or agree with the conclusions.<\/em><\/p>\n

13.\u00a0 To support her statement that she never accused Medifast of violating \u00a7 327, she claims that her post, which contained the statement \u201ceverything points to the real deal being endless chain recruitment into a pyramid scheme\u201d ER967-968, could only be interpreted as libel per quod, since, in order to understand this statement as one accusing Medifast of violating \u00a7 327, the reader must have read FitzPatrick\u2019s report\u2026 Coenen pointed her readers to FitzPatrick\u2019s report so they would understand precisely what criminal conduct she claimed Medifast was carrying on, but now she would like this Court to believe her readers would never have understood her use of the term \u201cendless chain\u201d to refer to any such criminal behavior.<\/p>\n

Again, I never stated or implied that Medifast was engaged in criminal behavior, and merely referring to FitzPatrick\u2019s report (which made such a statement) does not make me guilty of making the statements FitzPatrick made. The phrase \u201cendless chain\u201d does not refer to criminal conduct, but is rather a descriptor of the recruiting aspect of mutli-level marketing.<\/em><\/p>\n

14. Indeed, her assertion that she cannot be held responsible for libeling Medifast because she has fully-disclosed the facts upon which she relied must fail for this reason\u2013Coenen\u2019s source for each of the statements at issue was FitzPatrick, and FitzPatrick\u2019s motion to strike was denied.<\/p>\n

I am not responsible for libeling Medifast, and the court ruled that I did not<\/strong> libel Medifast. I made no false statements of fact, only statements of opinion. And in providing links and documents related to Medifast, I was merely setting forth information and other opinions that were related to the controversy. Indeed, my \u201csource\u201d for my statements of opinion was not FitzPatrick. Rather, it was the many years of research and analysis that I have done regarding multi-level marketing.<\/em><\/p>\n

15. Coenen\u2019s statement that she never accused Medifast of operating as a criminal enterprise is also easily disproven. Coenen wrote Medifast is \u201can endless chain pyramid scheme.\u201d She entitled her post \u201cMedifast\u2019s Take Shape For Life: weight loss pyramid scheme?\u201d ER967-68. A pyramid scheme is an illegal business structure, Webster, 79 F.3d at 782, ergo, according to Coenen, TSFL operates like a criminal enterprise.<\/p>\n

Medifast relies on a tortured explanation of what I said, rather than on the words themselves. Medifast asks the court to believe that only one definition of pyramid scheme exists, and that if you use that definition, I was saying that Medifast is a criminal enterprise. I have never said any such thing.<\/em><\/p>\n

16. Like FitzPatrick, Coenen was hired by Minkow because of her bias\u2013she believes every multi-level marketing company is a pyramid scheme, and she blogs vehemently on the topic on two separate websites.<\/p>\n

I have never said that every multi-level marketing company is a pyramid scheme. Medifast simply made this up. In fact the falsity of this claim was set forth in my deposition:<\/em><\/p>\n

Q In your opinion, is Herbalife a pyramid scheme?<\/em><\/p>\n

A I don’t know<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

17. Any \u201cexpert opinion\u201d Coenen gives regarding Medifast is skewed by this bias.<\/p>\n

My opinions on multi-level marketing do not amount to bias. I have spent years researching and writing about this business method. Through my research and analysis, I have developed a negative opinion about MLM and the likelihood of participants developing viable businesses. This does not constitute bias, but a well-researched and thought-out opinion based on many facts.<\/em><\/p>\n

18. Here, although adamant that Medifast is a pyramid scheme, Coenen never reviewed the one document central to such an analysis\u2013the TSFL compensation plan.<\/p>\n

The real truth is that I never saw the document Medifast attorneys claimed was the compensation plan presented to me at my deposition. I did review documents that outlined the compensation plan and levels in TSFL. I simply didn\u2019t review the specific document that was put in front of me at the deposition.<\/em><\/p>\n

19. Coenen made clear, provably false statements of fact about a compensation plan she knew nothing about. She relied solely on FitzPatrick\u2019s analysis, and as shown, FitzPatrick had no understanding of how it worked.<\/p>\n

I made no false statements of fact about the compensation plan.<\/em><\/p>\n

20. Similarly, Coenen re-posted allegations made by Minkow without factchecking. When writing her post on Medifast\u2019s outside auditor<\/a> and stating definitively that a person who worked at the wealth management division of the auditor recommended Medifast stock to an \u201cFDI operative\u201d, Coenen did not bother to find out either who the operative was, or if the statement was true\u2013she relied solely on Minkow, the \u201cex-fraudster.\u201d<\/p>\n

Minkow stated that the wealth management division of Medifast\u2019s auditor, recommended the purchase of Medifast stock to an FDI operative. I stated the following on my blog: \u201cThis becomes interesting when you consider that BJL Wealth Mangement recommended the purchase of Medifast stock to an operative of FDI.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

I was unable to verify this statement by Minkow, and took it at face value. Even if it is untrue, the statement itself does nothing to libel Medifast.\u00a0 It is not a statement about Medifast\u2019s conduct or anything else.<\/em><\/p>\n

21. At deposition, Coenen testified she did not care who the operative was\u2026 Coenen\u2019s statements were made recklessly and with utter disregard for whether they were true.<\/p>\n

This is utterly false. I never said that I did not care who the operative was.\u00a0 The transcript reads:<\/em><\/p>\n

Q Is there any reason why you didn’t ask who the source for that statement was?<\/em><\/p>\n

A Because I didn’t need to know who it was.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q You just believed that if Barry told you, that it must have been true?<\/em><\/p>\n

A No. I had been working with Barry at that time for two-and-a-half years, a little more than that, and I had known him to work with private investigators who would go do undercover things or make phone calls or whatever it is he had them do. And so it wasn’t unusual to me when they said, oh, yeah, someone called there and got this stock recommendation. That didn’t raise any red flags because it’s the type of thing that Barry might have hired out for in previous cases.<\/em><\/p>\n

[snip]<\/em><\/p>\n

Q So when you wrote this blog, you had no idea Mr. Lair had a criminal record, correct?<\/em><\/p>\n

A I had no idea who he was, and I had no idea that he had a criminal record.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q Okay. Would that have been some — a piece of information that might — you might have wanted to know before you made that statement in your post?<\/em><\/p>\n

MR. DUVERNAY: Objection, calls for speculation.<\/em><\/p>\n

THE WITNESS: No.<\/em><\/p>\n

BY MS. COHEN:<\/em>
\n Q It wouldn’t have mattered to you?<\/em><\/p>\n

A If I had known the information prior to the post, it probably would have affected what I wrote, but the information I had in hand at the time I wrote the post did not raise any questions for me or give me cause for concern.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

22. Minkow also asked Coenen for her opinion on this same subject, i.e., whether a conflict of interest existed for Medifast\u2019s outside auditing firm if a person connected with the firm had recommended Medifast stock. In response, Coenen was adamant that no such conflict existed, and told Minkow she wanted no part in his post\u2026 Nonetheless, two weeks later, Coenen blogged on this very topic, misleading the public into thinking there might be just such a conflict of interest for Medifast\u2019s auditors.<\/p>\n

Medifast and its attorneys are lying when they say, \u201cCoenen was adamant that no such conflict existed.\u201d What I actually said is recited in my deposition transcript:<\/em><\/p>\n

BY MS. COHEN:<\/em>
\n Q This is Exhibit 28. It’s 4190, FDI document, June 2, 2009. Your e-mail to Sam and Barry or to Sam, CC’d to Barry, yourself and Howard Sirota at the bottom. Oh, I’m sorry. Actually, first it starts with Sam Antar wrote, I need Tracy and Howard to review the following. And then your response to Mr. Antar’s post is, What proof is there of a conflict of interest or lack of independence? You can’t say that just because Carl is part of the investment firm there’s automatically a conflict of interest or lack of independence. Is that still your position?<\/em><\/p>\n

A Yes.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Clearly, I did not say that no conflict of interest existed. I stated that the facts as presented to me did not immediately indicate whether there is was conflict of interest or not.<\/em><\/p>\n

23. Additionally, Coenen\u2019s posts about Medifast continually included references to what she claimed was key information Medifast didn\u2019t disclose, leading her audience to believe that there was something nefarious or potentially illegal in Medifast\u2019s failure to make such disclosures.<\/p>\n

The posts are referring to information that is key for investors or consumers, and things that I want to know as a fraud investigator. But no suggestion or statement was made that Medifast is doing anything illegal or wrong. The statements were simply that the information was not disclosed.<\/em><\/p>\n

24. She even went so far as to compare Medifast\u2019s failure to disclose to that of YourTravelBiz.com<\/a>, a company under investigation by the California Attorney General at the time.<\/p>\n

Yes, a comparison was made for the purpose of showing key pieces of information regarding YourTravelBiz that the California Attorney General deemed important. Might not those same pieces of information also be important regarding Medifast? Yes, and that was the only implication that was made in the comparison.<\/em><\/p>\n

25. In sum, Coenen\u2019s disdain for the truth comes across loud and clear in her email correspondences with Minkow, in her failure to corroborate a single fact before posting statements she took from others, and her bias against Medifast.<\/p>\n

This is patently false. At all times I was interested in the truth and posted only what I knew to be truthful facts, along with statements of opinion. Many facts were indeed corroborated during my analysis of Medifast. And there is no bias. Simply a well-researched and supported opinion of multi-level marketing in general, and Medifast to be specific.<\/em><\/p>\n

26. Indeed, Coenen appears to take great pleasure in continuing to attack Medifast. And the company is not the only subject of her attacks\u2013nothing is off limits for Coenen if it will bring her publicity.<\/p>\n

Pointing out the lies in Medifast\u2019s court filings do not amount to attacks. They amount to setting the record straight and holding Medifast accountable for their lies. My writings about this case are not about publicity for myself, but publicity for Medifast, its bad business model, and its dirty and dishonest litigation tactics.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the bottom line:<\/strong> People are afforded free speech protection under the United States Constitution. They are permitted to research companies and write about their findings and opinions. The court ruled properly that nothing I said was defamatory to Medifast<\/a>. The lies Medifast has repeated in its filings in the original case and the appeal do not change the fact that I did not libel or defame the company.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

UPDATE: On February 17, 2010, Medifast Inc. filed suit in US District Court, Southern District of California, alleging defamation, violation of California Corporations Code, and unfair business practices. On March 29, 2011, Judge Janis Sammartino dismissed all of Medifast’s claims […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[827,184],"tags":[840,835,1770,834,837],"class_list":["post-10438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-public-companies","category-pyramid-schemes-mlm","tag-anti-slapp","tag-defamation","tag-libel","tag-medifast","tag-slapp-suit"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Z0e-2Im","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}