Complaint Review: MEDRA WILLIAM C RADER

A few days ago, my son received a threatening litigation letter via email from Dr. Rader's attorneys with false allegations of defamation and breach of contract, if my son did not cease and desist harrassment against Rader. My son was not the only one who received such a letter. Needless to say, these tactics are used to silence patients from saying anything negative and coming forth with the truth about Medra/Rader. The letter my son received can be viewed on page 48 post 1022, if you Google Fetal Stem Cells Topix.

Along with such cease and desist letters, patients have been bribed, threatened and guilted in removing or recanting their posts on the the Topix Forum. There are numerous missing posts and a few recants. Furthermore, phone calls and bribes have been made to people who have anything negative to say about Rader/Medra.It continues to be an ongoing Medra policy to silence the truth

The following is the response given to Rader's lawyers, which has been posted on the Topix board. I have omitted certain names and addresses, and graphic language, since Ripoff report doesn't allow it.



First and foremost, I am amazed that a supposedly legitimate law firm is not familiar with the law or the circumstances that pertain to the ongoing fraudulent activities of their client. However, I can only presume that birds of a feather flock together.

Secondly, for such a law firm to send threatening and intimidating emails to someone, without verifying that the person is the actual participant in allegations of defamation and breech of contract is not only illegal but is grounds for litigation against your client and your law firm.

Although I am not obligated to do your homework for you, I derive great pleasure in revealing your mentally retarded incompetence, while setting the record straight.
The incriminating emails sent to my son are invalid and illegal. My son does not preside at (censored), or is he connected to the emails that you sent to my email address. Most importantly, my son has never written anything of a negative slant toward William C. Rader on the Topix board or any other website. My son, which you unwittingly associate with the Topix board posts, is not in any way involved or knowledgeable about the posted comments. The posts have been written by another party, using my son's name. This of course is privleged information. Since my son is in no way whatsoever involved in the alleged claim of defamation against your client, your law firm and William C Rader's allegations are false. Therefore, it is your law firm and William C. Rader that are liable for defamation towards my son. Needless to say, your manipulative intimidation tactics have backfired.

Moreover, in William C. Rader's own words, he proposes to be a compulsive liar, a psychotic, and full of garbage. The statements that your client uses to describe himself are substantial in themselves to prove that he is a fraud. I would suggest that you review Rader's defamatory statements about himself before accusing others who are simply concurring with Rader.

However, the above discourse is irrelevant and a waste of my time. Since it is evident that you are not familiar with the law, let me refresh you in law 101. Any individual blogging negative or derogatory comments on a website about a person or company that is associated with selling product, the product itself or a company by itself is protected under the First Amendment, especially but not necessarily when the comments are based in fact and are documented.

Here is a website that contains the below article that I'd suggest you look into before you continue to make fools of yourselves.
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/don...

Don't Post This Cease-and-Desist Letter, Or Else

by Greg Beck

DirectBuy is a company that claims to offer a deal on furniture and home supplies by letting consumers buy directly from the manufacturer.
Apparently, the company doesn't want you to hear from customers who don't think the deal is such a good one. The company's law firm, Dozier Internet Law (which specializes, among other things, in using copyright law to "get websites pulled down without notice") sent a strongly worded demand letter to the owner of InfomercialScams.com , claiming that consumer complaints on the website are defamatory because they refer to the company's direct-buy plan as a "scam" and a "nightmare."

Of course, words like "scam" and "nightmare" are subjective statements of opinion. If consumers think a product is a scam, who can prove them wrong?
Because the statements identified by DirectBuy are pure opinion, they are protected by the First Amendment and can't give rise to liability for defamation. Even if the complaints were not opinion, however, the Communications Decency Act would protect the website from liability for its users' posts. The demand letter is therefore completely without merit.

Nevertheless, DirectBuy's lawyer, Donald Morris, relies on an extraordinarily broad reading of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com to claim that InfomercialRatings.com is liable for "encourag[ing] and solicit[ing] defamatory statements." Even worse, Morris threatens to file suit in Canada, because DirectBuy does business there in addition to the United States. And, to top it off, he claims that his threat letter is copyrighted, and that to post it online would give rise to copyright liability.

Companies trying to quash complaints by consumers on the Internet often send bullying letters like this, demanding that criticism be taken offline. These threats are often effective against small website operators who can't afford the cost of a legal battle, especially one filed in a distant forum or another country. Before the Web, there was little disincentive to sending such a letter. Now, however, companies realize that their demand letters may end up online, resulting in further embarrassment for them (a phenomenon for which Mike Masnick coined the term "Streisand Effect"). Copyright claims like the one in this letter are becoming a common method to counter that problem by scaring recipients into keeping quiet. It has so far been a successful strategy -- DirectBuy's lawyer claims that none of his similar demand letters, until now, have ever been posted online.

Public Citizen decided to post the letter on its website because it is only possible to understand our letter in response by seeing the letter we are responding to, and because we think Morris's letter is a good example of the many meritless threats that companies hurl at their online critics in an effort to silence dissent. We also don't think the copyright laws prevent us from posting the letter. First, the letter is not registered with the copyright office, and until it is, DirectBuy's law firm can't sue to enforce it. Second, posting the letter is a clear example of fair use. Companies should not be able to make threats and then hide from criticism behind the Copyright Act.


As for the alleged claim of breach of contract, let me remind Rader that my son did not sign a waiver or expressly agree to keep silent about Medra or Rader. Let me also remind Rader that my son is a quadriplegic who does not have the fine motor skills or dexterity in his fingers to sign a paper, much less type. In fact, it was I, my son's mother, who expressly told Rader that I was uncomfortable in signing such a waiver and intended to tell everyone I knew about my and my son's experience, whether my son improved or did not. In response, Rader expressed to me that he wanted me to talk to others about the experience. Rader's only concern was that I or my son would not talk to pro-life groups because he claimed that he was at risk of being shut down by their negative involvement.

Of course Rader's claim is fallacious illogical BS or should I say,full of garbage. Since his Medra infomercial website can be viewed worldwide, it only stands to reason that if he was at risk of being shut down by pro-life groups, this not only would have occurred by now but Rader would not expose himself to the negativity that he fears. His pretense of paranoia is only a manipulative tactic to silence patients. He uses the same claim against pharmaceutical companies and the media. If Rader was legitimate he would not only welcome the press, he would share his so called miracle cure with the medical community. Rader is a FRAUD.

Furthermore, I have been in contact with the FBI. During one of our conversations, the agent conveyed to me that in no certain terms was the bogus contract handed to me or anyone else legitimately binding, since the stem cell procedure was not only a scam but illegal and unauthorized by the U.S. and Dominican Republic governments. What makes Rader's scam even more damaging is that the stem cells have no chain of custody and are not administered by Rader or anyone legitimized to do so. I would advise your client that he is in deep (censure), as well as full of it. I would also advise that your client cease and desist in continuing to scam vulnerable people, while supplying them with false hope before his road to perdition destroys him and his affiliates. I would further advise your client that the damaging evidence compiled against him is more than sufficient to prosecute him for fraud, along with other felonious acts.

As your letter unnecessarily states, it goes without saying that Rader would prefer not to pursue litigation against my son or anyone else. Although your client proposes to be psychotic, it would not be in his best interest to open Pandora's Box in a court of law. As for me, I not only would prefer to pursue litigation against Rader, I would relish the opportunity to take this case to the Supreme Court and am prepared to do so.

I want to thank you for unwittingly adding to the proof that Rader is a fraud and uses intimidation tactics to silence patients. I have been eagerly anticipating the threat of a lawsuit and you have played so well into the scheme of things. The email sent by your law firm has been forwarded to Federal authorities, the BBC, a major US television network and various newspapers that I have been in contact with for several months.

****Please note**** Due to the graphic nature of my comments in my last paragraph of the letter, I am unable to disclose and include it in this post. However, in a few words I got my point across and it was the only response really needed.


Fraud buster
LINTHICUM, Maryland
U.S.A.