Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION OFFCE OF ADMINISTRATIV LAW JUDGES ) In the Matter of ) ) DANIEL CHAER ONE, ) a corporation, and ) ) JAMES FEIJO, ) individually, and as an officer of ) Daniel Chapter One ) ) ) Docket No. 9329 Public Document COMPLAIT COUNSEL'S PROPOSED FIINGS OF FACT AN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Leonard L. Gordon (212) 607-2801 Theodore Zang, Jr. (212) 607-2816 Carole A. Paynter (212) 607-2813 David W. Dulabon (212) 607-2814 Elizabeth K. Nach (202) 326-2611 Wiliam H. Efron (212) 607-2827 Counsel Supporting the Complaint Federal Trade Commission Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House One Bowling Green, Suite 318 New York, NY 10004
TABLE OF CONTENTS i. Complaint Counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Danel Chapter One And The Feijos ................................... 1 B. The FTC Has Jursdiction Over Respondent DCO, Whch Is A Corporation Withi The Meang Of Section 4 Of The FTC Act, And Respondent James F eijo. ...................................................................................................... ....... 2 1. Respondents Are Engaged In Commerce ......................... 2 2. Respondent James Feijo Controls Respondent DCO's Finances And Operations............... ................................. .......... ........... ............. ............ ..... 8 3. Respondents Do Not Maitain Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Respondents Profit From The Sale Of The DCO Products. . . .. .. . . .. .9 C. Respondents Clai That Their Products Cure, Mitigate, Treat, Or Prevent Cancer Or Tumors...............................................................................................................12 D. Respondents Dissemate Claims About Their Products to Consuiers . . . . . . . 19 E. Respondents Did Not Possess Substantiation For Such Claims At the Time They Were Made. ................ ....... ........................................ .... .......................... ............... 20 F. Dr. Miler Confirms That There Is No Competent And Reliable Scientific Evidence To Substantiate The Claims That DCO'S Products Treat, Cure, Or Prevent Cancer....................................................................................................... 22 G. Respondents' Purorted Experts Do Not Possess Any Information Substantiating Respondents' Clais And Reinforce Dr. Miler's Conclusion That No Competent And Reliable Scientific Evidence Exists To Support Respondents' Clais. . . .24 II. Complait Counsel's Proposed Conclusions of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
Page 3: TABt
Page 7 and 8: 14. "The priciples of BioMolecular
Page 9 and 10: 38. Respondents have generated appr
Page 11 and 12: Respondent DCO "is the ONLY nutrtio
Page 13 and 14: priced with most other brands but w
Page 15 and 16: Florida, which Respondent DCO owns.
Page 17 and 18: C. Respondents Claim That Their Pro
Page 19 and 20: and the tuor behind my hear has shr
Page 21 and 22: BioMixx TM. . . GDU Caps TM. . . (d
Page 23 and 24: east examnation by mamography. On 1
Page 25 and 26: 185. The DCO radio program and the
Page 27 and 28: 211. Universal Nutrtion has not con
Page 29 and 30: 233. Nevertheless, Dr. Miler cautio
Page 31 and 32: 262. When enterng in the MA an acti
Page 33 and 34: 292. Duke made no effort to see whe
Page 35 and 36: nutrtional supplements and botancal
Page 37 and 38: 352. LaMont acknowledged that there
Page 39 and 40: 383. Dews never has heard of James
Page 41 and 42: 412. Dews is not famliar with any s
Page 43 and 44: 442. There are no indications in Du
Page 45 and 46: 472. LaMont does not know whether B
Page 47 and 48: 114 F.T.C. at 322; Thompson Medical
Page 49 and 50: it was not blinded or placebo-contr
Page 51 and 52: Tech., Inc., 128 F.T.C. 299 (1999)
Page 53 and 54: In the Matter of ) ) DANIEL CHAER O
Page 55 and 56:
a. The Adverisements in Question Ma
Page 57 and 58:
In the Matter of ) ) DANIEL CHAER O
Page 59 and 60:
CCPF ~ 16-18. In 2002, James Feijo
Page 61 and 62:
the ter "BioMolecular Nutrtion" to
Page 63 and 64:
1. Claims That the DCO Products Are
Page 65 and 66:
above the brain stem. . . has compl
Page 67 and 68:
direct statements. Id. at 318 and 3
Page 69 and 70:
12-12A; CCPF ~ 35. Respondents make
Page 71 and 72:
c. Respondents Represented that GDU
Page 73 and 74:
CCPF ~ 140 (emphasis in bold added)
Page 75 and 76:
consistent with the FTC's approach.
Page 77 and 78:
not cure the fact that the claims a
Page 79 and 80:
fudamental requirements for scienti
Page 81 and 82:
competent and reliable scientific e
Page 83 and 84:
humans with cancer. CCPF ~ 228. il.
Page 85 and 86:
lines of evidence." CCPF ~ 280. LaM
Page 87 and 88:
effectiveness ofGDU, BioMixx, Bio*S
Page 89 and 90:
adverisements and promotional mater
Page 91 and 92:
canot, however, make deceptive stat
Page 93 and 94:
dosages ofthe DCO Products. CCPF ~~
Page 95 and 96:
VI. CONCLUSION The evidence at tral
Page 97 and 98:
In the Matter of DANIEL CHAPTER ONE
Page 99 and 100:
CX 14 Attachment C to Administrativ
Page 101 and 102:
CX33 Emails from DCO relating to FT
Page 103 and 104:
2. James Feijo Owner and President,
show all

Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?