< >

The Sue Gilliatt
"Post Plea" Affidavit:

The Proof that the U.S. Government
Supported a Vexatious Litigant
in Defrauding the Defendant and the Court

The ink had barely dried on the author's May 26, 2004 coerced plea agreement when May 29, three days later, Sue Gilliatt signed a 4-page sworn affidavit identifying the co-defendent, Dan Raber, as the sole source of all her medical troubles. It was then entered into United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, on June 3, 2004.
This document can be viewed at right by clicking any one of the four pages to see their enlargement. The reader can see that no where in this document does my name, or that of Alpha Omega Labs, appear.
It was not a problem for the Federal Court that Ms. Gilliatt's affidavit is inconsistent with her testimony that the Alpha Omega Labs product was the primary cause of her injury . . . or her deposition testimony the following July -- made prior to sentencing. As soon as my pleading was complete, Gilliatt and her lawyers were assured of collecting what would end up amounting to $800,000 off Alpha Omega Labs' product liability insurance policy. And so . . . with their first victory in hand, it appeared to them that the next logical thing to do was not argue with success: go after another defendant and claim that HIS product was the sole source of her medical condition. (The simply fact is that if you have a medical doctor surgically remove your nose, then THAT is the cause of the removed nose -- which is what actually occurred.)
If an objective observer compares the Affidavit at right with Sue Gilliatt's deposition of July 22nd, one will find mind-numbing inconsistencies. For example, let's take her experience with Cansema and a bloodroot paste from another herbal company (Appalachian) as it appears in her deposition, from p. 48-92. She states that she applied Cansema on September 21, 2001, and with repeated applications by September 22, 2001 had extensive damage to her nose. But in both the Affidavit, at right, and in her Deposition, she testifies that on September 24, 2001, she applied Raber's Bloodroot Salve, a product she acknowledges as being similar in nature in her deposition. If you take a product that you claim to have done very extensive damage to your face, why would you turn around and use a like product just two days later --- especially if you work as a professional nurse and are surrounding by medical practitioners?
Amazingly, she DOES admit on p. 84 of her deposition that she believes that a "combination of both of the products" removed her cancer -- that is, made her cancer-free. Yet, amazingly, she makes the claim that the Cansema testimonials from OTHER people that we collected from delighted end users were "fictionalized or falsified in order to support (their) claim." (p. 86, L. 20). She admits she has no evidence for this claim, other than her personal opinion (p. 86, Ll. 21-24). Yet it is on this opinion, among other factors, that the FDA claims to have acted against the author personally.
(Truth is, not a single testimonial was ever "doctored" in the history of Alpha Omega Labs.
I should know.
I transcribed and posted each and every one of them as we received them.)
There is no herbal salve, sold anywhere in the world --- not from the author, not from Dan Raber, not from any vendor of escharotics with which the author is or has been familiar, that will do to Sue Gilliatt's nose what can clearly be seen in the photograph at the top of this page. The clear, perfect, symmetrical cut lines are clear evidence that the nose was "doctored." The passage of time and the examination of the evidence will, in time, show the world what I already know: that Gilliatt lied under oath about the timing of her photograph. It was taken AFTER and not BEFORE surgical intervention.

With no medical insurance policy to go after, Dan Raber -- who was civilly accused of the very same things that the author was, settled the matter for $10,000 to get rid of the legal nuisance. The FDA came by at a later date to pick his remaining "unauthorized" inventory of product.
Dan Raber was never the subject of a Grand Jury hearing. Nor was he ever charged, arrested, or imprisoned. His home and business were not raided and sacked. His wife, child, and employees were not threatened.
Had Kevin Trudeau been paying FDA Agent, John Armand, to follow through on a "hit," it would have been an entire different matter for Dan Raber and his company.
The complicity of the U.S. Attorney's Office is clear and unmistakeable. Long after the Defendant's counsel made clear the discrepancy in U.S. Federal Court in Lafayette, the U.S. Attorney's office continued to support the notion that Cansema® unceremoniously ripped Sue Gilliatt's nose off, creating perfect surgical markings in the process. (The claim is not made on the Dept. of Justice web site, but in statements direct from the U.S. Attorney). A good example of this brazen tendency to keep the lie that initiates a prosecution going is that made by U.S. Attorney Larry Regan (who has since retired and now works for the City Attorney's office in Lake Charles). He states in one interview that "two women, one in Indiana and another in Texas, suffered injuries after using . . . Cansema." This claim was untruthful when U.S. Attorney Larry Regan made it, and he knew full well that it was a lie when he made it to the media. Sharon Lee (the Texas case) never even used Cansema, and Sue Gilliatt's case was immaterial: the basis for the plea agreement involved H3O and Cansema Tonic III, products that neither women had ever used. No mention of the use of Dan Raber's product is made. No mention is made that both products carried the DSHEA disclaimer, "To U.S. Users: this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease." No mention is made that Gilliatt used the product exactly as we have instructed customers not to.
U.S. Justice apologists will say that Regan's statement that Cansema was "sulfuric acid" was just a slip . . . that he must be referring to H3O. But even THAT is an untruthful statement. Just as is the claim that it was not a thoroughly tested product -- which it decidedly was (by the California manufacturer that made the product, supplied us with the claims, and provided the majority of our testimonials on that product.)
It is this consistency of untruthful behavior that one finds in everything the Department of Justice does -- or as Gore Vidal notes, "When a U.S. prosecutor enters a federal court, perjury is his native tongue."
In or OUT of the courtroom, fabrication on-the-fly to suit the desired appearances of the moment is the order of the day.
Such is the sorry state of the criminal justice system in the U.S. today --- as expounded and documented extensively in the work of Rodney Stich.

The Affidavit
(click to enlarge)

Sue Gilliatt's Post Plea Affidavit, page 1
Page 1 -- Includes June 3, 2004 date of entry by U.S. District Court, verified as a "true, correct and fully copy" of the underlying affidavit.

Sue Gilliatt's Post Plea Affidavit, page 2
Page 2

Sue Gilliatt's Post Plea Affidavit, page 3
Page 3

Sue Gilliatt's Post Plea Affidavit, page 4
Page 4 -- Signed and dated by Sue Gilliatt on May 29, 2004 -- under "penalties of perjury" -- penalties that Sue Gilliatt would never have to fact simply because she already had the full backing of U.S. FDA agent, John Armand.

Home Top of Page
Back to Chap. 3, Sec. 2 Table of Contents On to Chapter 3, Sec. 3