Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> The FRAUDfiles Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: The FRAUDfiles BlogMinkow Anti-SLAPP motion filed in Medifast case
By Tracy Coenen
The Medifast Inc. litigation over its multi-level marketing division Take Shape For Life (TSFL), and the criticism of it by me, Barry Minkow, Fraud Discovery Institute, William Lobdell, Robert FitzPatrick, and an anonymous message board poster who referred to the company’s board chairman Bradley McDonald as “Pimp Daddy Brad” marches on.
About a week ago, Robert FitzPatrick and I filed our anti-SLAPP motions with the court. This week Barry Minkow and Fraud Discovery Institute filed their anti-SLAPP motion with the court.
Medifast seems to be getting nervous and desperate. Their lawyers have been shamelessly lying to the court, and are trying all sorts of neat tricks to stall the anti-SLAPP motions. They now claim that they need all sorts of discovery done before they can reply to the anti-SLAPP motions.
The one curious thing that Medifast hasn’t done, is they haven’t pointed out even one false statement by any of the defendants. Their entire defamation case is based on supposed false statements by all of us. And Medifast would be in sole possession of the proof of the falsehood of our statements, yet they haven’t bothered to mention even one of these false statements. They’ve been saying for over a year that we’re lying about TSFL, but haven’t come forth with even one example.
I have plenty more to say about Medifast, their business model, and their litigation tactics. Unfortunately, due to the lawsuit pending, the less I say, the better. Even in a free country, it appears that the First Amendment rights of people can be trampled by corporate bullies like Medifast who will sue those who dare to challenge them.
If they’re so sure of their claims… and if we’ve told lies about them… and if they can prove it… why not proceed with the anti-SLAPP motions? Probably because the longer Medifast can drag this out and the more they cost the defendants in legal fees, the better their chances of shutting us up (and also shutting up any other citizen who dares to challenge the validity of the multi-level marketing business model).
Full post as published by The FRAUDfiles Blog on May 07, 2010 (boomark / email).
New York, NY and the NYPD
alleging false arrest for violating an unconstitutional anti-loitering law.
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
Amazon Kindle
Class Action Filed over Cracking Defect
Major Egg Producers
Class Action Filed over Alleged Price Fixing
National Class Action Filed Against Four Polycarbonate Plastic Baby Bottle Manufacturers

California Court of Appeals Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Trade Secrets/16600 Case
Ninth Circuit interprets Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, dismisses appeal
California Back Specialists v. Gary Rand (Cal. Ct. App. - March 6, 2008)
Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court, Finds Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies To Reporter's Conduct









