|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2005 > Who the fuck really cares?????
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Who the fuck really cares?????
|
|
| CatmanX 2005-12-06, 10:58 am |
| Ron, it is time to move on.
It is time to stop this crap and get on with your life.
Forget the opinions of others, your legacy will live, those you helped
know what you did and anything to gainsay this will not influence them
in any way.
Cut the crap, live in peace and enjoy yourself.
Love, light and peace
grant
| |
| linkron@gmail.com 2005-12-07, 1:06 am |
| It's not crap Grant. I always held you in high regard and still do for
helping people in need whether from LASIK or other eye-related issues.
The libel from Christopher Roiland (Ragnar) and Glenn Hagele is out
here in cyberspace forever. They might as well have published it in a
book. So, ethically I have to respond. It's all about my family legacy,
not just SE. Lies are lies...and for the reasons they spread them, not
only did they break libel laws, other laws were broken as well. Why
should I lie down to that? You're Australian - I have some Aussie
friends and they certainly wouldn't tolerate what's going on here.
So, until they retract, the truth will keep getting posted:
Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
network of over 80
lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at national ophthalmic
and optometric meetings, supported by many prominent lasik surgeons and
optometrists, and received hundreds of letters and emails of thanks as
well as recognition in the media for their work, and was featured in
over 140 global media outlets (often in respected health-related
magazines and reputable radio show formats).
Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
This public posting is a standing demand for Christopher Roiland to
remove the offending material cited below at once.
It is illegal to fabricate and publish falsehoods that harm and injure
through systematic malicious intent. Retract your statements now. If
you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
and to seek damages against you, personally.
Roiland's libelous statements:
(1) On April 25, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to over 60 doctors
who were participants on my web site (listed their contact information,
medical specialty and/or answered questions on my bulletin board). On
April 30, 2003, Roiland also posted the contents of that email at
alt.lasik.eyes:
"Dr. Maloney of California is a CRSQA certified surgeon and
supposedly very good. He has sponsored Surgical Eyes in the past
monetarily. NOW they have turned on him and bash him constantly in the
news groups. Ron doesn't do this himself but his partner Brent
Hanson do this for him. Brent and Ron's biggest collaborative effort
was to try and extort $350,000 from TLC. They had been trashing TLC
constantly, and then negotiated a deal where TLC would pay them off
$350,000 to stop the bashing. specifically, Brent promised and did
take down his www.lasikcourt.com website. When TLC didn't pay up,
Brent promptly put his website back up and resumed his attacks! This
is not my claim -this is what Brent himself posted less than a month
ago. If this isn't extortion, I don't know what is. In other words,
if you choose to dis-associate yourself from Ron Link, you can expect
to be trashed in the public internet forums. All Ron Link is, is a
former fireman who has made it his life's work to capitalize on the
reputations of doctors to fill his coffers."
[Dr. Maloney, Elias Vamvakas (TLC's CEO) and Dr. Jeffrey Machat (former
medical director of TLC) can confirm that all of these statements by
Roiland are absolute lies]
(2) On April 26, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to the aforementioned
doctors. On April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email
on alt.lasik.eyes:
"Unless I am missing something, Ron's education consists of a high
school diploma and some non-credit courses at USF in how to set up a
non-profit organization. In other words, the definitive huckster"
[I have a BA, credits towards a law degree, numerous other
certifications
related to the fire service, and working on my Master's]
(3) On April 30, 2003 sent a group email to the aforementioned doctors.
Also on April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email on
alt.lasik.eyes:
"The site is essentially Ron setting up a non-profit organization so
he can bring in money while still collecting disability for a unrelated
issue.
"He conspires with people such as Brent Hanson of www.lasikcourt.com
and Sandy Keller of www.lasikdisaster.com and RogerBratt of
www.lasiksos.com to scare people into seeking out the services of
unscrupulous doctors.
"Ron, together with his partners have tried to extort money from
companies and doctors. If they don't pay up, they get negative review
on their various websites."
[I am not on disability nor have I ever stated that I am. I have never
conspired with Hanson, Bratt nor Keller.]
(4) The following are instances of libel that were posted in the
alt.lasik.eyes newsgroup:
a. On April 5, 2003 11:37:02 PST, Roiland posted:
"Surgical Eyes which is the invention of extortion created by Ron
Link has in the past tried (and failed) to extort hundreds of thousands
of dollars from TLC in a partnership with Brent Hanson. The two of
them work as a team. Sandy is always in the picture also."
[Absolute lie.]
b. On April 9, 2003 22:11:54 PST, Roiland posted:
"What qualifies Ron Link to have an opinion about anything. The man
suffered permanent brain damage and personality disorders as a result
of a beating. Well, bless his heart, but we can certainly find someone
more appropriate for opinions."
[I do not have permanent brain damage or any personality disorders.]
c. On April 23, 2003 12:48:35 PST, Roiland posted:
"The one surgeon I found who has heard of Ron said: "Is he still
around? He used to hit me up for "donations", I finally told him to
get lost and he told me "you'll be sorry" "
[Absolute lie. I've never used the phrase "you'll be sorry" in
conversations with anyone, let alone a surgeon.]
d. On April 23, 2003 19:33 PST, Roiland posted:
"I hear you are about to crank up your extortion machine again! All
you doctors out there can expect a call from Ron soon. Supposedly, one
of Ron's lines to doctors who say no to join him is "well, read my
website, other doctors who don't initially join my site later found
it is in their best interest to do so". If this isn't a veiled
threat I don't know what is.."
[Absolute lie].
e. On April 25, 2003 15:42:28 PST, Roiland posted:
"I then called my ophthalmologist who is probably the best lasik
surgeon in the state - he certainly has the most credentials - if
he ever heard of Ron Link. He said YES! He had never heard of you until
you called him recently and were hitting him up for money. He asked
you flat out "why should I donate money to you?" and you
couldn't' come up with a reason"
[Absolute lie].
f. On April 30, 2003 08:21:16 PST, Roiland posted:
"This is kind of like that infamous "FDA" meeting which was a
meeting put together by Ron Link, and the primary speaker was Ron Link.
The FDA donated the use of the lecture room and the coffee, napkins
and cookies. That makes it an FDA meeting"
[I've attended and spoken at FDA meetings put together by the US
government. Easily verified through public record and otherwise. It's
pretty unwise to claim that anyone other than the government puts
together FDA
meetings].
g. On April 8, 2003 11:01:11 PST, Roiland posted:
"This is exactly what I was referring to...this was a "Ron Link"
meeting. It is chock full of false statistics."
[Libeling an FDA meeting and me in one post]
h. On April 23, 2003 19:33:48 PST, Roiland posted:
"As I recall, it was Brent and Ron that conspired to extort over
$300,000 from TLC. Brent even admitted in detail how he and Ron did
this."
[Absolute lie].
i. On April 23, 2003 20:22:16 PST, Roiland posted:
"Ron just finished off evading all taxes for the year 2002, so now
he's ready to go fishing for more extortion money to keep him going."
[
Absolute lie. I have always paid taxes on my income].
j. On May 1, 2003 14:28:15 PST, Roiland posted:
"But Brent Hanson and Ron Link teamed up to try and extort roughly
$350,000 out of TLC. That was their third and last attempt at doing
that".
[Absolute lie].
k. On May 11, 2203 17:24:04 PST, Roiland posted:
"Ron DIDN'T make the 2nd call to Dr. U in which he claims to have
discussed me, he DID make a previous call trying to extort money out of
Dr. U though"
[Absolute lie. I called Dr. Updegraff's office to ask
if we could list him on our website and the response was yes. I also
informed his office of Roiland's libel and claim to have been at an
Updegraff event where he saw someone affiliated with me which was
absolute nonsense].
l. On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
"Dr. Kopon and Dr. Gemoules seem to be the only two competent doctors
that participate here. Then there are the 3 Stooge doctors that hang
around Ron Link like klingon dingle berries. (Minarik, Hartzok, and
Russell)
BTW, on the 21st the 3 Stooges are appearing with the Weakest Link in
Tampa. Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
auspices
of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made the
on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
m. On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
[Another threat]
n. On June 19, 2003 04:36:22 PST, Roiland posted:
"That is the reason some DO pay his extorntion [sic] money. They
either pay, or he attacks them. One might wonder if his organized
crime methods weren't what instigated the attack he suffered that left
him with brain damage and personality disorders that rendered him
incapable of working anymore."
[I have never extorted money from anyone. I have never attacked
surgeons in any forum or in the media. I do not have brain damage nor
any personality disorders. I have worked since my attack in 1995 and am
currently employed]
o. On October 1, 2003 23:09:39 PST, Roiland posted:
"It's amusing to see people thank Ron for creating SE. He didn't
create squat. He stole someone elses website and presented it as his
own with a different URL." [The site Roiland is referring to is
www.kcenter.org is run by an eye care associate who consulted with me
when he was building his website which actually emerged after
www.surgicaleyes.org and looked very much like it because he used the
bulletin board company I recommended.]
p. On November 10, 2003 11:35:28 PST, Roiland posted:
"You won't see SE pick on them because LVI pays them extortion
money"
[Absolute lie. LVI never even made a donation to my
organization. We had accountants. We underwent a successful audit
during the one year we had enough donations to necessitate an automatic
audit and we hired an outside firm to do the audit. I have a copy of
that successful audit.]
q. On January 11, 2004 00:24:38 PST, Roiland posted:
"I have mentioned this before, but it got ignored - Ron started the
SE website by first taking some non-credit courses in marketing at USF,
then cloning the structure and much of the content of another website."
[Absolute lie. I took courses at USF after the creation of SE. The
creator of another website, www.kcenter.org consulted with me, Roiland
has it completely backward]
r. On Oct 20, 2004, 10:15 pm, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes:
"I forgot Ron Link was involved with that fiasco. Ironic that he has
no qualms about disrupting other people's meetings, but he gets
completely bent out of shape at the mere hint of anyone disrupting his
silly meeting of malcontents (which was the last one they ever had).
Incidentally, I was at a gathering involving LASIK surgeon Dr.
Updegraff. I recognized one of Ron's top attack dogs there trying to
stir up trouble."
[I've never disrupted a meeting in my life and
had no "top dog" at Dr. Updegraff's meeting.]
s. On November 9, 2004 at 4:48 pm, Roiland posted:
"You already embezzled all their available funds with your "website
maintenance fees". You have sucked them dry already."
[Absolute lie.]
t. On Dec 27 2004, 1:00am, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes: "I don't
know why Ron keeps beating a dead horse, but he seems determined to
propagate the idea that Surgical Eyes helped people. Without going into
a long diatribe about how that is nonsense, I will give one example of
what a disaster SE was.
The Lasik Vision Institute or LVI is well known to have the highest
incidence of complications of any chain of laser centers. Specifically,
the Tampa branch of LVI run by Marco Musa had perhaps a world record
number of complications in one day in that they infected the eyes of
almost every one of their two dozen patients that they had one day. A
T.V. news report was done on this and a class action suit was filed.
In that T.V. report, they interviewed Ron Link. Incredibly, Link in
effect defended LVI by saying that these types of complications were
normal, and not unusual. In the same report, the most prominent LASIK
surgeon in the Tampa Bay region said he's done over 30,000 procedures
without a single infection. Sounds to me that all those infections in
one day were far from business as usual. This is just one example of
LVI's abuses. Now... one might ask why the headquarters of Surgical
Eyes and the home of Ron Link is within walking distance of Tampa's
LVI, yet they have never lifted a finger to attack them in any way at
all.
Someone suggested that organizations that "donate" some money to SE
don't get negative reports and those that don't donate get "leaned on".
[Absolute lie.]
u. On December 27, 2004 at 10:14 pm, Roiland posted:
"I have no doubt that more people have been hurt than helped by
SE."
[I have a few hundred emails to the contrary. For a public
posting that is still up, see:
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Comments_Letters.htm]
v. On Feb 26, 2005, at 4:21 am, Roiland posted:
"There is no instrument used in the lasik procedure that isn't
disposable.. Now when a company such as LVI decides to increase their
profit margin by $50 on each eye by reusing those disposable $50
blades.. then there are problems. Amazingly, even though these
problems were known at the Tampa LVI, good ol' Ron Link got on camera
and esplained that the incidence of over 20 eye infections in one day
is not unusual for LASIK. Then Dr. Updegraff got on the same news
report and said that in his entire career he had not had even one eye
infection from LASIK. Sounds to me like someone is a liar and took
some payola from LVI."
[Absolute lie].
w. Nov 27, 2005 at 3:32 pm "....Paula Cofer in Florida (who shares
a trailer with Link)."
[Absolute lie]
x. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...$5000 to do a 2 hour transfer of the SE database?
[Absolute lie]
y. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...disability payments
[Absolute lie]
(5) Roiland also emailed false and injurious statements to Optical
Connections, Inc., a sponsor of The Surgical Eyes News,
(http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Newslet...r_July_2003.htm)
an e-journal dedicated to medical rehabilitation after refractive
surgery. The Surgical Eyes Foundation was made aware of this by Sandra
Zuccaro-Keyes, Optical Connection Inc.'s Director of Professional and
Customer Service who opined that this was a libelous action by Roiland.
Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
network of over 80 lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at
national ophthalmic and optometric meetings, supported by many
prominent lasik surgeons and optometrists, and received hundreds of
letters and emails of thanks as well as recognition in the media for
their work, and was featured in over 140 global media outlets (often in
respected health-related magazines and reputable radio show formats).
Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
This public posting is a standing demand for Glenn Hagele to remove the
offending material cited below at once. It is illegal to fabricate and
publish falsehoods that harm and injure through systematic malicious
intent. Retract your statements now. If
you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
and to seek damages against you, personally.
The problem is that Glenn Hagele refuses to acknowledge that what he
represented as fact are lies. His meritless statements about Microsoft
not donating to SE, stating that there was a connection between bad B&L
press and SE donations, that ASCRS told you to get me (I'd like to see
you explain that one their executive board), knowingly misrepresenting
my position during the LASIK debate (Dr. Stulting would love to
figuratively nail you to the wall for that boldface lie which he is
willing to do in a sworn affidavit), claiming that we had a MARS at SE
(there's one in outer space but there was never one in cyberspace of
SE), lying about restrictions on the SE bulletin board, lying about
what SE board members supposedly were told at meetings, accusing me of
the inability to maintain appropriate cognitive thought, emotional
stability, and sense of reason (never did I utter or write those
words), part-time apologists working for SE, my supposedly endorsing
the ASCRS guidelines (why don't you ask ASCRS if I endorsed them -
simply made it up like everything else)
People and documents exist to expose each and every one of Glenn
Hagele's lies. Glenn Hagele stood to gain by telling the lies that he
did, and that too,is a prosecutable offense.
Documented Libel by Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
1. On April 17, 2003 19:20:25 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
"I actually had a major player at ASCRS tell me, "Go get that
bast**d."" in reference to Ron Link, then Executive Director of The
Surgical Eyes Foundation, Inc.
[Who Glenn?]
2. On April 18, 2003 11:17:02 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
Ron Link does not allow any good information about refractive surgery
on his website. That is right, but it also indicates not only his own
bias, but his intent to keep SurgicalEyes' bias anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry.
Ron, SurgicalEyes, and the SurgicalEyes faithful use scare tactics
about their own unfortunate results to frighten away people from
refractive surgery. Those results may have absolutely nothing to do
with what the potential patient is considering.
Ron can make SurgicalEyes as anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
as he likes, but saying that he does not censure good news about
refractive surgery, or that SurgicalEyes is only about helping people
who have had poor outcomes is simply not truthful."
[Total fabrication. Why would SE have LASIK surgeons listed on their
site for rehabilitative purposes - their sites were often pro-lasik -
you lied again]
3. On May 1, 3003 13:32:06 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele -
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
"These may not be "official" SurgicalEyes associates, but there is
plenty of evidence of coordination of efforts between the individuals
either directly or indirectly. and Hanson and Bratt have been
participants at SurgicalEyes for years. It is also my understanding
that there is no current restriction at all on Hanson or Bratt's
participation at SurgicalEyes."
[Total fabrication - restrictions were and to the best of my knowledge,
are still in place, it's all a matter of record easily checked with the
bb provider]
4. On May 13, 2003 13:15:49:00 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"Link's prepared speech is on the SurgicalEyes website (the link is
in the document I mention above). It is clear from its content that
Link is calling for a moratorium on refractive surgery. Yes, he also
calls for a moratorium on the "status quo" and on other things, but a
full moratorium was the subject of the debate he chose to represent.
He presented his views well, rebutted Dr. Slade, and it was clear to
all in the audience that this is what he was calling for. It was clear
when the votes was if Link won the debate and there should be a
moratorium on refractive surgery, or if Dr. Slade had won the debate
and there should not be a moratorium on refractive surgery. Link
lost."
[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
5. On May 15, 2003 20:29:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
>You are right, there is no point in continuing this. I think everyone >can see that Glenn has not shown Ron stood up before the ASCRS >convention and called for a total and complete moritorium on >refractive surgery.
I proved it with Link's own words. You just chose to ignore Link's own
words because they discredit him and show your intrepid leader to be a
liar and a hypocrite. Instead of accepting the truth, you ignore what
proves my contention correct. How childish...and how sad."
[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
6. On June 18, 2003 09: 09:42:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"You don't need to be limited to this one law firm. SurgicalEyes has
its own Malpractice Attorney Referral Service (MARS) at
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Attorneys.htm."
[Total fabrication - there never was a MARS]
8. On July 1, 2003 10:42:41 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"My guess is that Bausch and Lomb made the mistake of not donating to
SurgicalEyes, when the "unofficial" SurgicalEyes representative finds
it necessary to post on this newsgroup every difficultly this company
encounters."
[You really screwed up here bigtime Glenn - there was never a
connection and what you are suggesting amounts to accusations of
blackmail or extortion - that's a significant criminal offense]
9. Followed by a posting on July 1, 2003 23:16:37 by Glenn Hagele
posted as Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Yes, as I surmised, B&L didn't make the donation."
[You sealed your coffin with this statement, unless you retract it]
10. On July 11, 2003 23:36:13 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:Date: 2003-07-11
"By Link's own words his ability to maintain appropriate cognitive
thought, emotional stability, and sense of reason is or was compromised
by clinical brain damage."
[Total fabrication - those are your words and not clinically related to
the successful cognitive therapy I underwent. You made up symptoms that
I never mentioned anywhere. Retract them or suffer the consequences. My
story on SE was written when the website launched. I continued
cognitive rehab for two years thereafter.]
11. On August 13, 2003 09:24:17 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"In the case of Ron Link, he has been proven a liar and a hypocrite
on several occasions. His credibility is so low he does not even
bother to post here anymore, preferring instead the controlled comfort
of his censored bulletin board and the company of the SurgicalEyes
faithful who seem to work part-time as Ron Link apologists."
[We never employed any part-time apologists provable by financial
statements]
I have described Link endorsing the ASCRS LASIK Patient Guidelines as
hypocritical. My reasoning is that the ASCRS guidelines contain a
troubling 1% LASIK complication rate statement. On multiple occasions
Ron Link has promoted statements that a 3% complication rate was too
low, that the dissatisfaction rate is about 9%, he's made statements
all over the place, but never has Link made any statements - before or
after his endorsement - that indicate he believes the ASCRS 1%
complication rate statement to be accurate.
[I never endorsed the guidelines. I defy you to find that anywhere in
print or otherwise. I said they were a good start - you twisted my
words to serve your agenda. That's illegal Glenn]
12. On February 21, 2004, 11:11:12 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes
Glenn Hagele, Executive Director, Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance:
Speaking of financial, I noticed on the SurgicalEyes home page they now
list the Microsoft corporation as a donor. Interestingly, no one at
Microsoft's legal department nor the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
have any idea what they are talking about. Of course, the name
"Microsoft" is a protected trademark and I'm sure they will be quite
interested in who is using their name, apparently without permission."
Hey Ron, I thought you were gone. Off learning how to actually sue
people, rather than constantly threatening to sue them. ... I tell you
what, Ron. You show me exactly where what I have said is inaccurate,
and I'll gladly retract it.
Or, to make things more simple, why don't you just produce evidence
that the Microsoft corporation has supported SurgicalEyes and how that
support was provided, including the Microsoft representative who
provided the support. Just do it now. Here. Publicly. No weasel
words. No double talk. Give us the name of the person to Microsoft
that we can contact to verify they are supporting SurgicalEyes. That
way I don't have to go from department to department at Microsoft
without ever finding anyone who knows about your claims. ..."
[I have names, letters of acknowledgement, and a letter apprising them
of your libel. In fact, Microsoft gave us a 2nd greenlight after we
called them and followed up with a letter apprising them of your libel.
I'll glady supply that information to your attorney ]
13. On May 7, 2004, 08:40:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Then there is the patient in Florida who sued TLC and was held up by
the SE Faithful as an example of how "broken" LASIK is. Not only was
that case dismissed, but the fellow had multiple previous felony
convictions that all included some sort of fraud, was found to have
fabricated much of his claim, and was a child molester who had not
registered as a sex offender in his home state. He was immediately
arrested as he departed the courthouse. Of course, you don't see that
part of the story on SE, Hanson, or Keller's websites."
[No official endorsement was ever made concerning this patient. You
labelled peopled SE Faithful that had no connection to SE officially
and attempted to make a connection that, in the eyes of the law or
otherwise, was never there. Take it back Glenn]
14. On May 13, 2004, 17:52:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Under oath, Pasqualino said he had never attend law school, however
subpoenaed documents from the university of Florida college of Law
indicated that Pasqualino forged a transcript from another student and
forged letters of recommendations from the Dean of Students at Boston
University, portraying him as a second year law student hoping to
transfer to the university of Florida. He actually was admitted, but
when the falsifications were discovered he was expelled.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Ron Link of SurgicalEyes attends the same
school of law.
Pasqualino was found to have submitted applications for multiple
Florida drivers licenses under multiple names with multiple Social
Security numbers.
After reviewing documents and testimony of these and a few other issues
with Pasqualino, the court fund that Pasqualino "has a long history of
fraudulent behaviors, some resulting in criminal charges and
convictions...had been convicted of nine (9) felonies - almost all
involving, in some way, fraud or dishonesty."
[What were you suggesting Glenn? We went to different lawschools, but
your intent to defame is glaringly transparent. Retract it now]
15. On May 14, 2004 09:44:03 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"It has been confirmed by reliable sources that the Board of Trustees
of SurgicalEyes were required to agree to not participate in this
forum. I have also heard from similarly reliable sources that
SurgicalEyes regulars who posted in this forum received messages from
SurgicalEyes officials discouraging their open participation here."
[Absolute fabrication. Surgical Eyes Board of Trustees never required
anyone to agree to not participate anywhere. We kept scrupulous board
notes. Once again, you are required to retract this statement].
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-10, 12:44 pm |
| Grant, nor Hanson, nor RT are going to hitch their wagon to you Ron.
That is like buying a ticket for the SS Titanic. I bet you can't
even get Keller to back you up anymore.
On 6 Dec 2005 21:28:54 -0800, linkron@gmail.com wrote:
>It's not crap Grant. I always held you in high regard and still do for
>helping people in need whether from LASIK or other eye-related issues.
>
>The libel from Christopher Roiland (Ragnar) and Glenn Hagele is out
>here in cyberspace forever. They might as well have published it in a
>book. So, ethically I have to respond. It's all about my family legacy,
>not just SE. Lies are lies...and for the reasons they spread them, not
>only did they break libel laws, other laws were broken as well. Why
>should I lie down to that? You're Australian - I have some Aussie
>friends and they certainly wouldn't tolerate what's going on here.
>
>So, until they retract, the truth will keep getting posted:
>
>Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
>help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
>network of over 80
>lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at national ophthalmic
>and optometric meetings, supported by many prominent lasik surgeons and
>optometrists, and received hundreds of letters and emails of thanks as
>well as recognition in the media for their work, and was featured in
>over 140 global media outlets (often in respected health-related
>magazines and reputable radio show formats).
>Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
>of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
>This public posting is a standing demand for Christopher Roiland to
>remove the offending material cited below at once.
>It is illegal to fabricate and publish falsehoods that harm and injure
>through systematic malicious intent. Retract your statements now. If
>you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
>and to seek damages against you, personally.
>
>Roiland's libelous statements:
>(1) On April 25, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to over 60 doctors
>who were participants on my web site (listed their contact information,
>medical specialty and/or answered questions on my bulletin board). On
>April 30, 2003, Roiland also posted the contents of that email at
>alt.lasik.eyes:
>"Dr. Maloney of California is a CRSQA certified surgeon and
>supposedly very good. He has sponsored Surgical Eyes in the past
>monetarily. NOW they have turned on him and bash him constantly in the
>
>news groups. Ron doesn't do this himself but his partner Brent
>Hanson do this for him. Brent and Ron's biggest collaborative effort
>was to try and extort $350,000 from TLC. They had been trashing TLC
>constantly, and then negotiated a deal where TLC would pay them off
>$350,000 to stop the bashing. specifically, Brent promised and did
>take down his www.lasikcourt.com website. When TLC didn't pay up,
>Brent promptly put his website back up and resumed his attacks! This
>is not my claim -this is what Brent himself posted less than a month
>ago. If this isn't extortion, I don't know what is. In other words,
>if you choose to dis-associate yourself from Ron Link, you can expect
>to be trashed in the public internet forums. All Ron Link is, is a
>former fireman who has made it his life's work to capitalize on the
>reputations of doctors to fill his coffers."
>[Dr. Maloney, Elias Vamvakas (TLC's CEO) and Dr. Jeffrey Machat (former
>medical director of TLC) can confirm that all of these statements by
>Roiland are absolute lies]
>(2) On April 26, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to the aforementioned
>
>doctors. On April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email
>on alt.lasik.eyes:
>"Unless I am missing something, Ron's education consists of a high
>school diploma and some non-credit courses at USF in how to set up a
>non-profit organization. In other words, the definitive huckster"
>[I have a BA, credits towards a law degree, numerous other
>certifications
>related to the fire service, and working on my Master's]
>(3) On April 30, 2003 sent a group email to the aforementioned doctors.
>
>Also on April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email on
>alt.lasik.eyes:
>"The site is essentially Ron setting up a non-profit organization so
>he can bring in money while still collecting disability for a unrelated
>issue.
>"He conspires with people such as Brent Hanson of www.lasikcourt.com
>and Sandy Keller of www.lasikdisaster.com and RogerBratt of
>www.lasiksos.com to scare people into seeking out the services of
>unscrupulous doctors.
>"Ron, together with his partners have tried to extort money from
>companies and doctors. If they don't pay up, they get negative review
>on their various websites."
>[I am not on disability nor have I ever stated that I am. I have never
>conspired with Hanson, Bratt nor Keller.]
>(4) The following are instances of libel that were posted in the
>alt.lasik.eyes newsgroup:
>a. On April 5, 2003 11:37:02 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Surgical Eyes which is the invention of extortion created by Ron
>Link has in the past tried (and failed) to extort hundreds of thousands
>
>of dollars from TLC in a partnership with Brent Hanson. The two of
>them work as a team. Sandy is always in the picture also."
>[Absolute lie.]
>b. On April 9, 2003 22:11:54 PST, Roiland posted:
>"What qualifies Ron Link to have an opinion about anything. The man
>suffered permanent brain damage and personality disorders as a result
>of a beating. Well, bless his heart, but we can certainly find someone
>
>more appropriate for opinions."
>[I do not have permanent brain damage or any personality disorders.]
>c. On April 23, 2003 12:48:35 PST, Roiland posted:
>"The one surgeon I found who has heard of Ron said: "Is he still
>around? He used to hit me up for "donations", I finally told him to
>get lost and he told me "you'll be sorry" "
>[Absolute lie. I've never used the phrase "you'll be sorry" in
>conversations with anyone, let alone a surgeon.]
>d. On April 23, 2003 19:33 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I hear you are about to crank up your extortion machine again! All
>you doctors out there can expect a call from Ron soon. Supposedly, one
>
>of Ron's lines to doctors who say no to join him is "well, read my
>website, other doctors who don't initially join my site later found
>it is in their best interest to do so". If this isn't a veiled
>threat I don't know what is.."
>[Absolute lie].
>e. On April 25, 2003 15:42:28 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I then called my ophthalmologist who is probably the best lasik
>surgeon in the state - he certainly has the most credentials - if
>he ever heard of Ron Link. He said YES! He had never heard of you until
>
>you called him recently and were hitting him up for money. He asked
>you flat out "why should I donate money to you?" and you
>couldn't' come up with a reason"
>[Absolute lie].
>f. On April 30, 2003 08:21:16 PST, Roiland posted:
>"This is kind of like that infamous "FDA" meeting which was a
>meeting put together by Ron Link, and the primary speaker was Ron Link.
>
> The FDA donated the use of the lecture room and the coffee, napkins
>and cookies. That makes it an FDA meeting"
>[I've attended and spoken at FDA meetings put together by the US
>government. Easily verified through public record and otherwise. It's
>pretty unwise to claim that anyone other than the government puts
>together FDA
>meetings].
>g. On April 8, 2003 11:01:11 PST, Roiland posted:
>"This is exactly what I was referring to...this was a "Ron Link"
>meeting. It is chock full of false statistics."
>[Libeling an FDA meeting and me in one post]
>h. On April 23, 2003 19:33:48 PST, Roiland posted:
>"As I recall, it was Brent and Ron that conspired to extort over
>$300,000 from TLC. Brent even admitted in detail how he and Ron did
>this."
>[Absolute lie].
>i. On April 23, 2003 20:22:16 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Ron just finished off evading all taxes for the year 2002, so now
>he's ready to go fishing for more extortion money to keep him going."
>[
>Absolute lie. I have always paid taxes on my income].
>j. On May 1, 2003 14:28:15 PST, Roiland posted:
>"But Brent Hanson and Ron Link teamed up to try and extort roughly
>$350,000 out of TLC. That was their third and last attempt at doing
>that".
>[Absolute lie].
>k. On May 11, 2203 17:24:04 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Ron DIDN'T make the 2nd call to Dr. U in which he claims to have
>discussed me, he DID make a previous call trying to extort money out of
>
>Dr. U though"
>[Absolute lie. I called Dr. Updegraff's office to ask
>if we could list him on our website and the response was yes. I also
>informed his office of Roiland's libel and claim to have been at an
>Updegraff event where he saw someone affiliated with me which was
>absolute nonsense].
>l. On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Dr. Kopon and Dr. Gemoules seem to be the only two competent doctors
>that participate here. Then there are the 3 Stooge doctors that hang
>around Ron Link like klingon dingle berries. (Minarik, Hartzok, and
>Russell)
>BTW, on the 21st the 3 Stooges are appearing with the Weakest Link in
>Tampa. Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
>[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
>auspices
>of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made the
>on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
>personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
>m. On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
>"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
>6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
>
>of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
>That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
>
>[Another threat]
>n. On June 19, 2003 04:36:22 PST, Roiland posted:
>"That is the reason some DO pay his extorntion [sic] money. They
>either pay, or he attacks them. One might wonder if his organized
>crime methods weren't what instigated the attack he suffered that left
>him with brain damage and personality disorders that rendered him
>incapable of working anymore."
>[I have never extorted money from anyone. I have never attacked
>surgeons in any forum or in the media. I do not have brain damage nor
>any personality disorders. I have worked since my attack in 1995 and am
>currently employed]
>o. On October 1, 2003 23:09:39 PST, Roiland posted:
>"It's amusing to see people thank Ron for creating SE. He didn't
>create squat. He stole someone elses website and presented it as his
>own with a different URL." [The site Roiland is referring to is
>www.kcenter.org is run by an eye care associate who consulted with me
>when he was building his website which actually emerged after
>www.surgicaleyes.org and looked very much like it because he used the
>bulletin board company I recommended.]
>p. On November 10, 2003 11:35:28 PST, Roiland posted:
>"You won't see SE pick on them because LVI pays them extortion
>money"
>[Absolute lie. LVI never even made a donation to my
>organization. We had accountants. We underwent a successful audit
>during the one year we had enough donations to necessitate an automatic
>
>audit and we hired an outside firm to do the audit. I have a copy of
>that successful audit.]
>q. On January 11, 2004 00:24:38 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I have mentioned this before, but it got ignored - Ron started the
>SE website by first taking some non-credit courses in marketing at USF,
>then cloning the structure and much of the content of another website."
>
>[Absolute lie. I took courses at USF after the creation of SE. The
>creator of another website, www.kcenter.org consulted with me, Roiland
>has it completely backward]
>r. On Oct 20, 2004, 10:15 pm, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes:
>"I forgot Ron Link was involved with that fiasco. Ironic that he has
>no qualms about disrupting other people's meetings, but he gets
>completely bent out of shape at the mere hint of anyone disrupting his
>silly meeting of malcontents (which was the last one they ever had).
>Incidentally, I was at a gathering involving LASIK surgeon Dr.
>Updegraff. I recognized one of Ron's top attack dogs there trying to
>stir up trouble."
>[I've never disrupted a meeting in my life and
>had no "top dog" at Dr. Updegraff's meeting.]
>s. On November 9, 2004 at 4:48 pm, Roiland posted:
>"You already embezzled all their available funds with your "website
>maintenance fees". You have sucked them dry already."
>[Absolute lie.]
>t. On Dec 27 2004, 1:00am, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes: "I don't
>know why Ron keeps beating a dead horse, but he seems determined to
>propagate the idea that Surgical Eyes helped people. Without going into
>
>a long diatribe about how that is nonsense, I will give one example of
>what a disaster SE was.
>The Lasik Vision Institute or LVI is well known to have the highest
>incidence of complications of any chain of laser centers. Specifically,
>
>the Tampa branch of LVI run by Marco Musa had perhaps a world record
>number of complications in one day in that they infected the eyes of
>almost every one of their two dozen patients that they had one day. A
>T.V. news report was done on this and a class action suit was filed.
>In that T.V. report, they interviewed Ron Link. Incredibly, Link in
>effect defended LVI by saying that these types of complications were
>normal, and not unusual. In the same report, the most prominent LASIK
>surgeon in the Tampa Bay region said he's done over 30,000 procedures
>without a single infection. Sounds to me that all those infections in
>one day were far from business as usual. This is just one example of
>LVI's abuses. Now... one might ask why the headquarters of Surgical
>Eyes and the home of Ron Link is within walking distance of Tampa's
>LVI, yet they have never lifted a finger to attack them in any way at
>all.
>Someone suggested that organizations that "donate" some money to SE
>don't get negative reports and those that don't donate get "leaned on".
>
> [Absolute lie.]
>u. On December 27, 2004 at 10:14 pm, Roiland posted:
>"I have no doubt that more people have been hurt than helped by
>SE."
>[I have a few hundred emails to the contrary. For a public
>posting that is still up, see:
>http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Comments_Letters.htm]
>v. On Feb 26, 2005, at 4:21 am, Roiland posted:
>"There is no instrument used in the lasik procedure that isn't
>disposable.. Now when a company such as LVI decides to increase their
>profit margin by $50 on each eye by reusing those disposable $50
>blades.. then there are problems. Amazingly, even though these
>problems were known at the Tampa LVI, good ol' Ron Link got on camera
>and esplained that the incidence of over 20 eye infections in one day
>is not unusual for LASIK. Then Dr. Updegraff got on the same news
>report and said that in his entire career he had not had even one eye
>infection from LASIK. Sounds to me like someone is a liar and took
>some payola from LVI."
>[Absolute lie].
>w. Nov 27, 2005 at 3:32 pm "....Paula Cofer in Florida (who shares
>a trailer with Link)."
>[Absolute lie]
>x. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...$5000 to do a 2 hour transfer of the SE database?
>
>[Absolute lie]
>y. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...disability payments
>[Absolute lie]
>(5) Roiland also emailed false and injurious statements to Optical
>Connections, Inc., a sponsor of The Surgical Eyes News,
>(http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Newslet...r_July_2003.htm)
>an e-journal dedicated to medical rehabilitation after refractive
>surgery. The Surgical Eyes Foundation was made aware of this by Sandra
>Zuccaro-Keyes, Optical Connection Inc.'s Director of Professional and
>Customer Service who opined that this was a libelous action by Roiland.
>
>
>Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
>help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
>network of over 80 lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at
>national ophthalmic and optometric meetings, supported by many
>prominent lasik surgeons and optometrists, and received hundreds of
>letters and emails of thanks as well as recognition in the media for
>their work, and was featured in over 140 global media outlets (often in
>respected health-related magazines and reputable radio show formats).
>Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
>of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
>
>This public posting is a standing demand for Glenn Hagele to remove the
>offending material cited below at once. It is illegal to fabricate and
>publish falsehoods that harm and injure through systematic malicious
>intent. Retract your statements now. If
>you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
>and to seek damages against you, personally.
>
>The problem is that Glenn Hagele refuses to acknowledge that what he
>represented as fact are lies. His meritless statements about Microsoft
>not donating to SE, stating that there was a connection between bad B&L
>press and SE donations, that ASCRS told you to get me (I'd like to see
>you explain that one their executive board), knowingly misrepresenting
>my position during the LASIK debate (Dr. Stulting would love to
>figuratively nail you to the wall for that boldface lie which he is
>willing to do in a sworn affidavit), claiming that we had a MARS at SE
>(there's one in outer space but there was never one in cyberspace of
>SE), lying about restrictions on the SE bulletin board, lying about
>what SE board members supposedly were told at meetings, accusing me of
>the inability to maintain appropriate cognitive thought, emotional
>stability, and sense of reason (never did I utter or write those
>words), part-time apologists working for SE, my supposedly endorsing
>the ASCRS guidelines (why don't you ask ASCRS if I endorsed them -
>simply made it up like everything else)
>
>People and documents exist to expose each and every one of Glenn
>Hagele's lies. Glenn Hagele stood to gain by telling the lies that he
>did, and that too,is a prosecutable offense.
>
>Documented Libel by Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
>
>Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
>
>1. On April 17, 2003 19:20:25 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
>"I actually had a major player at ASCRS tell me, "Go get that
>bast**d."" in reference to Ron Link, then Executive Director of The
>Surgical Eyes Foundation, Inc.
>[Who Glenn?]
>2. On April 18, 2003 11:17:02 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
>Ron Link does not allow any good information about refractive surgery
>on his website. That is right, but it also indicates not only his own
>bias, but his intent to keep SurgicalEyes' bias anti-refractive
>surgery/surgeon/industry.
>Ron, SurgicalEyes, and the SurgicalEyes faithful use scare tactics
>about their own unfortunate results to frighten away people from
>refractive surgery. Those results may have absolutely nothing to do
>with what the potential patient is considering.
>Ron can make SurgicalEyes as anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
>as he likes, but saying that he does not censure good news about
>refractive surgery, or that SurgicalEyes is only about helping people
>who have had poor outcomes is simply not truthful."
>[Total fabrication. Why would SE have LASIK surgeons listed on their
>site for rehabilitative purposes - their sites were often pro-lasik -
>you lied again]
>3. On May 1, 3003 13:32:06 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele -
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
>"These may not be "official" SurgicalEyes associates, but there is
>plenty of evidence of coordination of efforts between the individuals
>either directly or indirectly. and Hanson and Bratt have been
>participants at SurgicalEyes for years. It is also my understanding
>that there is no current restriction at all on Hanson or Bratt's
>participation at SurgicalEyes."
>[Total fabrication - restrictions were and to the best of my knowledge,
>
>are still in place, it's all a matter of record easily checked with the
>
>bb provider]
>4. On May 13, 2003 13:15:49:00 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:
>"Link's prepared speech is on the SurgicalEyes website (the link is
>in the document I mention above). It is clear from its content that
>Link is calling for a moratorium on refractive surgery. Yes, he also
>calls for a moratorium on the "status quo" and on other things, but a
>full moratorium was the subject of the debate he chose to represent.
>He presented his views well, rebutted Dr. Slade, and it was clear to
>all in the audience that this is what he was calling for. It was clear
>
>when the votes was if Link won the debate and there should be a
>moratorium on refractive surgery, or if Dr. Slade had won the debate
>and there should not be a moratorium on refractive surgery. Link
>lost."
>[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
>Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
>Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
>misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
>5. On May 15, 2003 20:29:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:
>
>
>I proved it with Link's own words. You just chose to ignore Link's own
>
>words because they discredit him and show your intrepid leader to be a
>liar and a hypocrite. Instead of accepting the truth, you ignore what
>proves my contention correct. How childish...and how sad."
>[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
>Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
>Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
>misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
>6. On June 18, 2003 09: 09:42:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
>Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:
>"You don't need to be limited to this one law firm. SurgicalEyes has
>its own Malpractice Attorney Referral Service (MARS) at
>http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Attorneys.htm."
>[Total fabrication - there never was a MARS]
>8. On July 1, 2003 10:42:41 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:
>"My guess is that Bausch and Lomb made the mistake of not donating to
>SurgicalEyes, when the "unofficial" SurgicalEyes representative finds
>it necessary to post on this newsgroup every difficultly this company
>encounters."
>[You really screwed up here bigtime Glenn - there was never a
>connection and what you are suggesting amounts to accusations of
>blackmail or extortion - that's a significant criminal offense]
>9. Followed by a posting on July 1, 2003 23:16:37 by Glenn Hagele
>posted as Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
>Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
>"Yes, as I surmised, B&L didn't make the donation."
>[You sealed your coffin with this statement, unless you retract it]
>10. On July 11, 2003 23:36:13 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:Date: 2003-07-11
>"By Link's own words his ability to maintain appropriate cognitive
>thought, emotional stability, and sense of reason is or was compromised
>
>by clinical brain damage."
>[Total fabrication - those are your words and not clinically related to
>
>the successful cognitive therapy I underwent. You made up symptoms that
>
>I never mentioned anywhere. Retract them or suffer the consequences. My
>
>story on SE was written when the website launched. I continued
>cognitive rehab for two years thereafter.]
>11. On August 13, 2003 09:24:17 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
>Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes:
>"In the case of Ron Link, he has been proven a liar and a hypocrite
>on several occasions. His credibility is so low he does not even
>bother to post here anymore, preferring instead the controlled comfort
>of his censored bulletin board and the company of the SurgicalEyes
>faithful who seem to work part-time as Ron Link apologists."
>[We never employed any part-time apologists provable by financial
>statements]
>I have described Link endorsing the ASCRS LASIK Patient Guidelines as
>hypocritical. My reasoning is that the ASCRS guidelines contain a
>troubling 1% LASIK complication rate statement. On multiple occasions
>Ron Link has promoted statements that a 3% complication rate was too
>low, that the dissatisfaction rate is about 9%, he's made statements
>all over the place, but never has Link made any statements - before or
>after his endorsement - that indicate he believes the ASCRS 1%
>complication rate statement to be accurate.
>[I never endorsed the guidelines. I defy you to find that anywhere in
>print or otherwise. I said they were a good start - you twisted my
>words to serve your agenda. That's illegal Glenn]
>12. On February 21, 2004, 11:11:12 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
>Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
>alt.lasik-eyes
>Glenn Hagele, Executive Director, Council for Refractive Surgery
>Quality Assurance:
>Speaking of financial, I noticed on the SurgicalEyes home page they now
>
>list the Microsoft corporation as a donor. Interestingly, no one at
>Microsoft's legal department nor the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
>have any idea what they are talking about. Of course, the name
>"Microsoft" is a protected trademark and I'm sure they will be quite
>interested in who is using their name, apparently without permission."
>Hey Ron, I thought you were gone. Off learning how to actually sue
>people, rather than constantly threatening to sue them. ... I tell you
>what, Ron. You show me exactly where what I have said is inaccurate,
>and I'll gladly retract it.
>Or, to make things more simple, why don't you just produce evidence
>that the Microsoft corporation has supported SurgicalEyes and how that
>support was provided, including the Microsoft representative who
>provided the support. Just do it now. Here. Publicly. No weasel
>words. No double talk. Give us the name of the person to Microsoft
>that we can contact to verify they are supporting SurgicalEyes. That
>way I don't have to go from department to department at Microsoft
>without ever finding anyone who knows about your claims. ..."
>[I have names, letters of acknowledgement, and a letter apprising them
>of your libel. In fact, Microsoft gave us a 2nd greenlight after we
>called them and followed up with a letter apprising them of your libel.
>
>I'll glady supply that information to your attorney ]
>13. On May 7, 2004, 08:40:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
>"Then there is the patient in Florida who sued TLC and was held up by
>the SE Faithful as an example of how "broken" LASIK is. Not only was
>that case dismissed, but the fellow had multiple previous felony
>convictions that all included some sort of fraud, was found to have
>fabricated much of his claim, and was a child molester who had not
>registered as a sex offender in his home state. He was immediately
>arrested as he departed the courthouse. Of course, you don't see that
>part of the story on SE, Hanson, or Keller's websites."
>[No official endorsement was ever made concerning this patient. You
>labelled peopled SE Faithful that had no connection to SE officially
>and attempted to make a connection that, in the eyes of the law or
>otherwise, was never there. Take it back Glenn]
>14. On May 13, 2004, 17:52:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
>"Under oath, Pasqualino said he had never attend law school, however
>subpoenaed documents from the university of Florida college of Law
>indicated that Pasqualino forged a transcript from another student and
>forged letters of recommendations from the Dean of Students at Boston
>University, portraying him as a second year law student hoping to
>transfer to the university of Florida. He actually was admitted, but
>when the falsifications were discovered he was expelled.
>Wouldn't it be interesting if Ron Link of SurgicalEyes attends the same
>
>school of law.
>Pasqualino was found to have submitted applications for multiple
>Florida drivers licenses under multiple names with multiple Social
>Security numbers.
>After reviewing documents and testimony of these and a few other issues
>
>with Pasqualino, the court fund that Pasqualino "has a long history of
>fraudulent behaviors, some resulting in criminal charges and
>convictions...had been convicted of nine (9) felonies - almost all
>involving, in some way, fraud or dishonesty."
>[What were you suggesting Glenn? We went to different lawschools, but
>your intent to defame is glaringly transparent. Retract it now]
>15. On May 14, 2004 09:44:03 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
>- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
>"It has been confirmed by reliable sources that the Board of Trustees
>of SurgicalEyes were required to agree to not participate in this
>forum. I have also heard from similarly reliable sources that
>SurgicalEyes regulars who posted in this forum received messages from
>SurgicalEyes officials discouraging their open participation here."
>[Absolute fabrication. Surgical Eyes Board of Trustees never required
>anyone to agree to not participate anywhere. We kept scrupulous board
>notes. Once again, you are required to retract this statement].
| |
| CatmanX 2005-12-10, 12:44 pm |
| Ron, I did not post this for you to turn into a dissertation of the
wrongs against you. It was a message that anything said here is
irrelevant and not worth wasting breath over.
It is time to grow up and move on.
If you have legal issues let a court handle it, this is not the forum
for this type of discussion, in fact, it will predudice any case.
grant
| |
| linkron@gmail.com 2005-12-10, 12:44 pm |
| Actually, Grant, it does not prejudice a case. It makes a stronger
because the retractions were not made when the opportunity was given do
so.
Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
network of over 80
lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at national ophthalmic
and optometric meetings, supported by many prominent lasik surgeons and
optometrists, and received hundreds of letters and emails of thanks as
well as recognition in the media for their work, and was featured in
over 140 global media outlets (often in respected health-related
magazines and reputable radio show formats).
Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
This public posting is a standing demand for Christopher Roiland to
remove the offending material cited below at once.
It is illegal to fabricate and publish falsehoods that harm and injure
through systematic malicious intent. Retract your statements now. If
you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
and to seek damages against you, personally.
Roiland's libelous statements:
(1) On April 25, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to over 60 doctors
who were participants on my web site (listed their contact information,
medical specialty and/or answered questions on my bulletin board). On
April 30, 2003, Roiland also posted the contents of that email at
alt.lasik.eyes:
"Dr. Maloney of California is a CRSQA certified surgeon and
supposedly very good. He has sponsored Surgical Eyes in the past
monetarily. NOW they have turned on him and bash him constantly in the
news groups. Ron doesn't do this himself but his partner Brent
Hanson do this for him. Brent and Ron's biggest collaborative effort
was to try and extort $350,000 from TLC. They had been trashing TLC
constantly, and then negotiated a deal where TLC would pay them off
$350,000 to stop the bashing. specifically, Brent promised and did
take down his www.lasikcourt.com website. When TLC didn't pay up,
Brent promptly put his website back up and resumed his attacks! This
is not my claim -this is what Brent himself posted less than a month
ago. If this isn't extortion, I don't know what is. In other words,
if you choose to dis-associate yourself from Ron Link, you can expect
to be trashed in the public internet forums. All Ron Link is, is a
former fireman who has made it his life's work to capitalize on the
reputations of doctors to fill his coffers."
[Dr. Maloney, Elias Vamvakas (TLC's CEO) and Dr. Jeffrey Machat (former
medical director of TLC) can confirm that all of these statements by
Roiland are absolute lies]
(2) On April 26, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to the aforementioned
doctors. On April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email
on alt.lasik.eyes:
"Unless I am missing something, Ron's education consists of a high
school diploma and some non-credit courses at USF in how to set up a
non-profit organization. In other words, the definitive huckster"
[I have a BA, credits towards a law degree, numerous other
certifications
related to the fire service, and working on my Master's]
(3) On April 30, 2003 sent a group email to the aforementioned doctors.
Also on April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email on
alt.lasik.eyes:
"The site is essentially Ron setting up a non-profit organization so
he can bring in money while still collecting disability for a unrelated
issue.
"He conspires with people such as Brent Hanson of www.lasikcourt.com
and Sandy Keller of www.lasikdisaster.com and RogerBratt of
www.lasiksos.com to scare people into seeking out the services of
unscrupulous doctors.
"Ron, together with his partners have tried to extort money from
companies and doctors. If they don't pay up, they get negative review
on their various websites."
[I am not on disability nor have I ever stated that I am. I have never
conspired with Hanson, Bratt nor Keller.]
(4) The following are instances of libel that were posted in the
alt.lasik.eyes newsgroup:
a. On April 5, 2003 11:37:02 PST, Roiland posted:
"Surgical Eyes which is the invention of extortion created by Ron
Link has in the past tried (and failed) to extort hundreds of thousands
of dollars from TLC in a partnership with Brent Hanson. The two of
them work as a team. Sandy is always in the picture also."
[Absolute lie.]
b. On April 9, 2003 22:11:54 PST, Roiland posted:
"What qualifies Ron Link to have an opinion about anything. The man
suffered permanent brain damage and personality disorders as a result
of a beating. Well, bless his heart, but we can certainly find someone
more appropriate for opinions."
[I do not have permanent brain damage or any personality disorders.]
c. On April 23, 2003 12:48:35 PST, Roiland posted:
"The one surgeon I found who has heard of Ron said: "Is he still
around? He used to hit me up for "donations", I finally told him to
get lost and he told me "you'll be sorry" "
[Absolute lie. I've never used the phrase "you'll be sorry" in
conversations with anyone, let alone a surgeon.]
d. On April 23, 2003 19:33 PST, Roiland posted:
"I hear you are about to crank up your extortion machine again! All
you doctors out there can expect a call from Ron soon. Supposedly, one
of Ron's lines to doctors who say no to join him is "well, read my
website, other doctors who don't initially join my site later found
it is in their best interest to do so". If this isn't a veiled
threat I don't know what is.."
[Absolute lie].
e. On April 25, 2003 15:42:28 PST, Roiland posted:
"I then called my ophthalmologist who is probably the best lasik
surgeon in the state - he certainly has the most credentials - if
he ever heard of Ron Link. He said YES! He had never heard of you until
you called him recently and were hitting him up for money. He asked
you flat out "why should I donate money to you?" and you
couldn't' come up with a reason"
[Absolute lie].
f. On April 30, 2003 08:21:16 PST, Roiland posted:
"This is kind of like that infamous "FDA" meeting which was a
meeting put together by Ron Link, and the primary speaker was Ron Link.
The FDA donated the use of the lecture room and the coffee, napkins
and cookies. That makes it an FDA meeting"
[I've attended and spoken at FDA meetings put together by the US
government. Easily verified through public record and otherwise. It's
pretty unwise to claim that anyone other than the government puts
together FDA
meetings].
g. On April 8, 2003 11:01:11 PST, Roiland posted:
"This is exactly what I was referring to...this was a "Ron Link"
meeting. It is chock full of false statistics."
[Libeling an FDA meeting and me in one post]
h. On April 23, 2003 19:33:48 PST, Roiland posted:
"As I recall, it was Brent and Ron that conspired to extort over
$300,000 from TLC. Brent even admitted in detail how he and Ron did
this."
[Absolute lie].
i. On April 23, 2003 20:22:16 PST, Roiland posted:
"Ron just finished off evading all taxes for the year 2002, so now
he's ready to go fishing for more extortion money to keep him going."
[
Absolute lie. I have always paid taxes on my income].
j. On May 1, 2003 14:28:15 PST, Roiland posted:
"But Brent Hanson and Ron Link teamed up to try and extort roughly
$350,000 out of TLC. That was their third and last attempt at doing
that".
[Absolute lie].
k. On May 11, 2203 17:24:04 PST, Roiland posted:
"Ron DIDN'T make the 2nd call to Dr. U in which he claims to have
discussed me, he DID make a previous call trying to extort money out of
Dr. U though"
[Absolute lie. I called Dr. Updegraff's office to ask
if we could list him on our website and the response was yes. I also
informed his office of Roiland's libel and claim to have been at an
Updegraff event where he saw someone affiliated with me which was
absolute nonsense].
l. On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
"Dr. Kopon and Dr. Gemoules seem to be the only two competent doctors
that participate here. Then there are the 3 Stooge doctors that hang
around Ron Link like klingon dingle berries. (Minarik, Hartzok, and
Russell)
BTW, on the 21st the 3 Stooges are appearing with the Weakest Link in
Tampa. Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
auspices
of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made the
on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
m. On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
[Another threat]
n. On June 19, 2003 04:36:22 PST, Roiland posted:
"That is the reason some DO pay his extorntion [sic] money. They
either pay, or he attacks them. One might wonder if his organized
crime methods weren't what instigated the attack he suffered that left
him with brain damage and personality disorders that rendered him
incapable of working anymore."
[I have never extorted money from anyone. I have never attacked
surgeons in any forum or in the media. I do not have brain damage nor
any personality disorders. I have worked since my attack in 1995 and am
currently employed]
o. On October 1, 2003 23:09:39 PST, Roiland posted:
"It's amusing to see people thank Ron for creating SE. He didn't
create squat. He stole someone elses website and presented it as his
own with a different URL." [The site Roiland is referring to is
www.kcenter.org is run by an eye care associate who consulted with me
when he was building his website which actually emerged after
www.surgicaleyes.org and looked very much like it because he used the
bulletin board company I recommended.]
p. On November 10, 2003 11:35:28 PST, Roiland posted:
"You won't see SE pick on them because LVI pays them extortion
money"
[Absolute lie. LVI never even made a donation to my
organization. We had accountants. We underwent a successful audit
during the one year we had enough donations to necessitate an automatic
audit and we hired an outside firm to do the audit. I have a copy of
that successful audit.]
q. On January 11, 2004 00:24:38 PST, Roiland posted:
"I have mentioned this before, but it got ignored - Ron started the
SE website by first taking some non-credit courses in marketing at USF,
then cloning the structure and much of the content of another website."
[Absolute lie. I took courses at USF after the creation of SE. The
creator of another website, www.kcenter.org consulted with me, Roiland
has it completely backward]
r. On Oct 20, 2004, 10:15 pm, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes:
"I forgot Ron Link was involved with that fiasco. Ironic that he has
no qualms about disrupting other people's meetings, but he gets
completely bent out of shape at the mere hint of anyone disrupting his
silly meeting of malcontents (which was the last one they ever had).
Incidentally, I was at a gathering involving LASIK surgeon Dr.
Updegraff. I recognized one of Ron's top attack dogs there trying to
stir up trouble."
[I've never disrupted a meeting in my life and
had no "top dog" at Dr. Updegraff's meeting.]
s. On November 9, 2004 at 4:48 pm, Roiland posted:
"You already embezzled all their available funds with your "website
maintenance fees". You have sucked them dry already."
[Absolute lie.]
t. On Dec 27 2004, 1:00am, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes: "I don't
know why Ron keeps beating a dead horse, but he seems determined to
propagate the idea that Surgical Eyes helped people. Without going into
a long diatribe about how that is nonsense, I will give one example of
what a disaster SE was.
The Lasik Vision Institute or LVI is well known to have the highest
incidence of complications of any chain of laser centers. Specifically,
the Tampa branch of LVI run by Marco Musa had perhaps a world record
number of complications in one day in that they infected the eyes of
almost every one of their two dozen patients that they had one day. A
T.V. news report was done on this and a class action suit was filed.
In that T.V. report, they interviewed Ron Link. Incredibly, Link in
effect defended LVI by saying that these types of complications were
normal, and not unusual. In the same report, the most prominent LASIK
surgeon in the Tampa Bay region said he's done over 30,000 procedures
without a single infection. Sounds to me that all those infections in
one day were far from business as usual. This is just one example of
LVI's abuses. Now... one might ask why the headquarters of Surgical
Eyes and the home of Ron Link is within walking distance of Tampa's
LVI, yet they have never lifted a finger to attack them in any way at
all.
Someone suggested that organizations that "donate" some money to SE
don't get negative reports and those that don't donate get "leaned on".
[Absolute lie.]
u. On December 27, 2004 at 10:14 pm, Roiland posted:
"I have no doubt that more people have been hurt than helped by
SE."
[I have a few hundred emails to the contrary. For a public
posting that is still up, see:
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Comments_Letters.htm]
v. On Feb 26, 2005, at 4:21 am, Roiland posted:
"There is no instrument used in the lasik procedure that isn't
disposable.. Now when a company such as LVI decides to increase their
profit margin by $50 on each eye by reusing those disposable $50
blades.. then there are problems. Amazingly, even though these
problems were known at the Tampa LVI, good ol' Ron Link got on camera
and esplained that the incidence of over 20 eye infections in one day
is not unusual for LASIK. Then Dr. Updegraff got on the same news
report and said that in his entire career he had not had even one eye
infection from LASIK. Sounds to me like someone is a liar and took
some payola from LVI."
[Absolute lie].
w. Nov 27, 2005 at 3:32 pm "....Paula Cofer in Florida (who shares
a trailer with Link)."
[Absolute lie]
x. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...$5000 to do a 2 hour transfer of the SE database?
[Absolute lie]
y. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...disability payments
[Absolute lie]
(5) Roiland also emailed false and injurious statements to Optical
Connections, Inc., a sponsor of The Surgical Eyes News,
(http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Newslet...r_July_2003.htm)
an e-journal dedicated to medical rehabilitation after refractive
surgery. The Surgical Eyes Foundation was made aware of this by Sandra
Zuccaro-Keyes, Optical Connection Inc.'s Director of Professional and
Customer Service who opined that this was a libelous action by Roiland.
Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
network of over 80 lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at
national ophthalmic and optometric meetings, supported by many
prominent lasik surgeons and optometrists, and received hundreds of
letters and emails of thanks as well as recognition in the media for
their work, and was featured in over 140 global media outlets (often in
respected health-related magazines and reputable radio show formats).
Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
This public posting is a standing demand for Glenn Hagele to remove the
offending material cited below at once. It is illegal to fabricate and
publish falsehoods that harm and injure through systematic malicious
intent. Retract your statements now. If
you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
and to seek damages against you, personally.
The problem is that Glenn Hagele refuses to acknowledge that what he
represented as fact are lies. His meritless statements about Microsoft
not donating to SE, stating that there was a connection between bad B&L
press and SE donations, that ASCRS told you to get me (I'd like to see
you explain that one their executive board), knowingly misrepresenting
my position during the LASIK debate (Dr. Stulting would love to
figuratively nail you to the wall for that boldface lie which he is
willing to do in a sworn affidavit), claiming that we had a MARS at SE
(there's one in outer space but there was never one in cyberspace of
SE), lying about restrictions on the SE bulletin board, lying about
what SE board members supposedly were told at meetings, accusing me of
the inability to maintain appropriate cognitive thought, emotional
stability, and sense of reason (never did I utter or write those
words), part-time apologists working for SE, my supposedly endorsing
the ASCRS guidelines (why don't you ask ASCRS if I endorsed them -
simply made it up like everything else)
People and documents exist to expose each and every one of Glenn
Hagele's lies. Glenn Hagele stood to gain by telling the lies that he
did, and that too,is a prosecutable offense.
Documented Libel by Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
Glenn Hagele, Executive Director of CRSQA
1. On April 17, 2003 19:20:25 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
"I actually had a major player at ASCRS tell me, "Go get that
bast**d."" in reference to Ron Link, then Executive Director of The
Surgical Eyes Foundation, Inc.
[Who Glenn?]
2. On April 18, 2003 11:17:02 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
Ron Link does not allow any good information about refractive surgery
on his website. That is right, but it also indicates not only his own
bias, but his intent to keep SurgicalEyes' bias anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry.
Ron, SurgicalEyes, and the SurgicalEyes faithful use scare tactics
about their own unfortunate results to frighten away people from
refractive surgery. Those results may have absolutely nothing to do
with what the potential patient is considering.
Ron can make SurgicalEyes as anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
as he likes, but saying that he does not censure good news about
refractive surgery, or that SurgicalEyes is only about helping people
who have had poor outcomes is simply not truthful."
[Total fabrication. Why would SE have LASIK surgeons listed on their
site for rehabilitative purposes - their sites were often pro-lasik -
you lied again]
3. On May 1, 3003 13:32:06 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele -
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance on alt.lasik-eyes:
"These may not be "official" SurgicalEyes associates, but there is
plenty of evidence of coordination of efforts between the individuals
either directly or indirectly. and Hanson and Bratt have been
participants at SurgicalEyes for years. It is also my understanding
that there is no current restriction at all on Hanson or Bratt's
participation at SurgicalEyes."
[Total fabrication - restrictions were and to the best of my knowledge,
are still in place, it's all a matter of record easily checked with the
bb provider]
4. On May 13, 2003 13:15:49:00 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"Link's prepared speech is on the SurgicalEyes website (the link is
in the document I mention above). It is clear from its content that
Link is calling for a moratorium on refractive surgery. Yes, he also
calls for a moratorium on the "status quo" and on other things, but a
full moratorium was the subject of the debate he chose to represent.
He presented his views well, rebutted Dr. Slade, and it was clear to
all in the audience that this is what he was calling for. It was clear
when the votes was if Link won the debate and there should be a
moratorium on refractive surgery, or if Dr. Slade had won the debate
and there should not be a moratorium on refractive surgery. Link
lost."
[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
5. On May 15, 2003 20:29:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
>You are right, there is no point in continuing this. I think everyone >can see that Glenn has not shown Ron stood up before the ASCRS >convention and called for a total and complete moritorium on >refractive surgery.
I proved it with Link's own words. You just chose to ignore Link's own
words because they discredit him and show your intrepid leader to be a
liar and a hypocrite. Instead of accepting the truth, you ignore what
proves my contention correct. How childish...and how sad."
[You know full well the position I was asked to represent by Dr.
Stulting. I saw it as an opportunity to tell the truth about SE.
Stulting is prepared to sign an affidavit attesting to your
misrepresentation of the facts. If you don't believe me, ask him]
6. On June 18, 2003 09: 09:42:49 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"You don't need to be limited to this one law firm. SurgicalEyes has
its own Malpractice Attorney Referral Service (MARS) at
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Attorneys.htm."
[Total fabrication - there never was a MARS]
8. On July 1, 2003 10:42:41 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"My guess is that Bausch and Lomb made the mistake of not donating to
SurgicalEyes, when the "unofficial" SurgicalEyes representative finds
it necessary to post on this newsgroup every difficultly this company
encounters."
[You really screwed up here bigtime Glenn - there was never a
connection and what you are suggesting amounts to accusations of
blackmail or extortion - that's a significant criminal offense]
9. Followed by a posting on July 1, 2003 23:16:37 by Glenn Hagele
posted as Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Yes, as I surmised, B&L didn't make the donation."
[You sealed your coffin with this statement, unless you retract it]
10. On July 11, 2003 23:36:13 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:Date: 2003-07-11
"By Link's own words his ability to maintain appropriate cognitive
thought, emotional stability, and sense of reason is or was compromised
by clinical brain damage."
[Total fabrication - those are your words and not clinically related to
the successful cognitive therapy I underwent. You made up symptoms that
I never mentioned anywhere. Retract them or suffer the consequences. My
story on SE was written when the website launched. I continued
cognitive rehab for two years thereafter.]
11. On August 13, 2003 09:24:17 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes:
"In the case of Ron Link, he has been proven a liar and a hypocrite
on several occasions. His credibility is so low he does not even
bother to post here anymore, preferring instead the controlled comfort
of his censored bulletin board and the company of the SurgicalEyes
faithful who seem to work part-time as Ron Link apologists."
[We never employed any part-time apologists provable by financial
statements]
I have described Link endorsing the ASCRS LASIK Patient Guidelines as
hypocritical. My reasoning is that the ASCRS guidelines contain a
troubling 1% LASIK complication rate statement. On multiple occasions
Ron Link has promoted statements that a 3% complication rate was too
low, that the dissatisfaction rate is about 9%, he's made statements
all over the place, but never has Link made any statements - before or
after his endorsement - that indicate he believes the ASCRS 1%
complication rate statement to be accurate.
[I never endorsed the guidelines. I defy you to find that anywhere in
print or otherwise. I said they were a good start - you twisted my
words to serve your agenda. That's illegal Glenn]
12. On February 21, 2004, 11:11:12 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn
Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on
alt.lasik-eyes
Glenn Hagele, Executive Director, Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance:
Speaking of financial, I noticed on the SurgicalEyes home page they now
list the Microsoft corporation as a donor. Interestingly, no one at
Microsoft's legal department nor the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
have any idea what they are talking about. Of course, the name
"Microsoft" is a protected trademark and I'm sure they will be quite
interested in who is using their name, apparently without permission."
Hey Ron, I thought you were gone. Off learning how to actually sue
people, rather than constantly threatening to sue them. ... I tell you
what, Ron. You show me exactly where what I have said is inaccurate,
and I'll gladly retract it.
Or, to make things more simple, why don't you just produce evidence
that the Microsoft corporation has supported SurgicalEyes and how that
support was provided, including the Microsoft representative who
provided the support. Just do it now. Here. Publicly. No weasel
words. No double talk. Give us the name of the person to Microsoft
that we can contact to verify they are supporting SurgicalEyes. That
way I don't have to go from department to department at Microsoft
without ever finding anyone who knows about your claims. ..."
[I have names, letters of acknowledgement, and a letter apprising them
of your libel. In fact, Microsoft gave us a 2nd greenlight after we
called them and followed up with a letter apprising them of your libel.
I'll glady supply that information to your attorney ]
13. On May 7, 2004, 08:40:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Then there is the patient in Florida who sued TLC and was held up by
the SE Faithful as an example of how "broken" LASIK is. Not only was
that case dismissed, but the fellow had multiple previous felony
convictions that all included some sort of fraud, was found to have
fabricated much of his claim, and was a child molester who had not
registered as a sex offender in his home state. He was immediately
arrested as he departed the courthouse. Of course, you don't see that
part of the story on SE, Hanson, or Keller's websites."
[No official endorsement was ever made concerning this patient. You
labelled peopled SE Faithful that had no connection to SE officially
and attempted to make a connection that, in the eyes of the law or
otherwise, was never there. Take it back Glenn]
14. On May 13, 2004, 17:52:10 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"Under oath, Pasqualino said he had never attend law school, however
subpoenaed documents from the university of Florida college of Law
indicated that Pasqualino forged a transcript from another student and
forged letters of recommendations from the Dean of Students at Boston
University, portraying him as a second year law student hoping to
transfer to the university of Florida. He actually was admitted, but
when the falsifications were discovered he was expelled.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Ron Link of SurgicalEyes attends the same
school of law.
Pasqualino was found to have submitted applications for multiple
Florida drivers licenses under multiple names with multiple Social
Security numbers.
After reviewing documents and testimony of these and a few other issues
with Pasqualino, the court fund that Pasqualino "has a long history of
fraudulent behaviors, some resulting in criminal charges and
convictions...had been convicted of nine (9) felonies - almost all
involving, in some way, fraud or dishonesty."
[What were you suggesting Glenn? We went to different lawschools, but
your intent to defame is glaringly transparent. Retract it now]
15. On May 14, 2004 09:44:03 PST, Glenn Hagele posted as Glenn Hagele
- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, on alt.lasik-eyes
"It has been confirmed by reliable sources that the Board of Trustees
of SurgicalEyes were required to agree to not participate in this
forum. I have also heard from similarly reliable sources that
SurgicalEyes regulars who posted in this forum received messages from
SurgicalEyes officials discouraging their open participation here."
[Absolute fabrication. Surgical Eyes Board of Trustees never required
anyone to agree to not participate anywhere. We kept scrupulous board
notes. Once again, you are required to retract this statement].
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-10, 12:44 pm |
| You have already demanded retractions hundreds of times for things you
know are true. At best, you don't agree with them, but they are
certainly not lies. You know you will never get any retractions. So
you can just end that charade now, or it will be ended for you.
As for you... there is no excuse for what you have done in the field
of eyecare. The overall effect of all your years of propagating
misinformation and misleading/scaring people has hurt far more people
than may have been helped. The only people helped were malcontents -
nurtured by your garbage - who found a place to feed into their
complaints. If you did that in England, they would put you in prison.
If you did it in China, they would execute you.
And since you think I already have Paul Quin's e-mail address, then
you won't mind repeating it. I would love to let him know about you.
And as for your network of over 80 doctors... Amost all of them in
that "network" got there by filling out a sign-up form at an eye care
meeting not even realizing what they were getting themselves into.
Also, only about 6 of your doctors have posted more than 10 messages.
Most have posted none and had no participation at all.
Have you ever considered being a used car salesman?
On 7 Dec 2005 18:45:24 -0800, linkron@gmail.com wrote:
>Actually, Grant, it does not prejudice a case. It makes a stronger
>because the retractions were not made when the opportunity was given do
>so.
>
>Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
>help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
>network of over 80
>lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at national ophthalmic
>and optometric meetings, supported by many prominent lasik surgeons and
>optometrists, and received hundreds of letters and emails of thanks as
>well as recognition in the media for their work, and was featured in
>over 140 global media outlets (often in respected health-related
>magazines and reputable radio show formats).
>Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
>of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
>This public posting is a standing demand for Christopher Roiland to
>remove the offending material cited below at once.
>It is illegal to fabricate and publish falsehoods that harm and injure
>through systematic malicious intent. Retract your statements now. If
>you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
>and to seek damages against you, personally.
>
>Roiland's libelous statements:
>(1) On April 25, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to over 60 doctors
>who were participants on my web site (listed their contact information,
>medical specialty and/or answered questions on my bulletin board). On
>April 30, 2003, Roiland also posted the contents of that email at
>alt.lasik.eyes:
>"Dr. Maloney of California is a CRSQA certified surgeon and
>supposedly very good. He has sponsored Surgical Eyes in the past
>monetarily. NOW they have turned on him and bash him constantly in the
>
>news groups. Ron doesn't do this himself but his partner Brent
>Hanson do this for him. Brent and Ron's biggest collaborative effort
>was to try and extort $350,000 from TLC. They had been trashing TLC
>constantly, and then negotiated a deal where TLC would pay them off
>$350,000 to stop the bashing. specifically, Brent promised and did
>take down his www.lasikcourt.com website. When TLC didn't pay up,
>Brent promptly put his website back up and resumed his attacks! This
>is not my claim -this is what Brent himself posted less than a month
>ago. If this isn't extortion, I don't know what is. In other words,
>if you choose to dis-associate yourself from Ron Link, you can expect
>to be trashed in the public internet forums. All Ron Link is, is a
>former fireman who has made it his life's work to capitalize on the
>reputations of doctors to fill his coffers."
>[Dr. Maloney, Elias Vamvakas (TLC's CEO) and Dr. Jeffrey Machat (former
>medical director of TLC) can confirm that all of these statements by
>Roiland are absolute lies]
>(2) On April 26, 2003, Roiland sent a group email to the aforementioned
>
>doctors. On April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email
>on alt.lasik.eyes:
>"Unless I am missing something, Ron's education consists of a high
>school diploma and some non-credit courses at USF in how to set up a
>non-profit organization. In other words, the definitive huckster"
>[I have a BA, credits towards a law degree, numerous other
>certifications
>related to the fire service, and working on my Master's]
>(3) On April 30, 2003 sent a group email to the aforementioned doctors.
>
>Also on April 30, 2003, Roiland posted the contents of that email on
>alt.lasik.eyes:
>"The site is essentially Ron setting up a non-profit organization so
>he can bring in money while still collecting disability for a unrelated
>issue.
>"He conspires with people such as Brent Hanson of www.lasikcourt.com
>and Sandy Keller of www.lasikdisaster.com and RogerBratt of
>www.lasiksos.com to scare people into seeking out the services of
>unscrupulous doctors.
>"Ron, together with his partners have tried to extort money from
>companies and doctors. If they don't pay up, they get negative review
>on their various websites."
>[I am not on disability nor have I ever stated that I am. I have never
>conspired with Hanson, Bratt nor Keller.]
>(4) The following are instances of libel that were posted in the
>alt.lasik.eyes newsgroup:
>a. On April 5, 2003 11:37:02 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Surgical Eyes which is the invention of extortion created by Ron
>Link has in the past tried (and failed) to extort hundreds of thousands
>
>of dollars from TLC in a partnership with Brent Hanson. The two of
>them work as a team. Sandy is always in the picture also."
>[Absolute lie.]
>b. On April 9, 2003 22:11:54 PST, Roiland posted:
>"What qualifies Ron Link to have an opinion about anything. The man
>suffered permanent brain damage and personality disorders as a result
>of a beating. Well, bless his heart, but we can certainly find someone
>
>more appropriate for opinions."
>[I do not have permanent brain damage or any personality disorders.]
>c. On April 23, 2003 12:48:35 PST, Roiland posted:
>"The one surgeon I found who has heard of Ron said: "Is he still
>around? He used to hit me up for "donations", I finally told him to
>get lost and he told me "you'll be sorry" "
>[Absolute lie. I've never used the phrase "you'll be sorry" in
>conversations with anyone, let alone a surgeon.]
>d. On April 23, 2003 19:33 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I hear you are about to crank up your extortion machine again! All
>you doctors out there can expect a call from Ron soon. Supposedly, one
>
>of Ron's lines to doctors who say no to join him is "well, read my
>website, other doctors who don't initially join my site later found
>it is in their best interest to do so". If this isn't a veiled
>threat I don't know what is.."
>[Absolute lie].
>e. On April 25, 2003 15:42:28 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I then called my ophthalmologist who is probably the best lasik
>surgeon in the state - he certainly has the most credentials - if
>he ever heard of Ron Link. He said YES! He had never heard of you until
>
>you called him recently and were hitting him up for money. He asked
>you flat out "why should I donate money to you?" and you
>couldn't' come up with a reason"
>[Absolute lie].
>f. On April 30, 2003 08:21:16 PST, Roiland posted:
>"This is kind of like that infamous "FDA" meeting which was a
>meeting put together by Ron Link, and the primary speaker was Ron Link.
>
> The FDA donated the use of the lecture room and the coffee, napkins
>and cookies. That makes it an FDA meeting"
>[I've attended and spoken at FDA meetings put together by the US
>government. Easily verified through public record and otherwise. It's
>pretty unwise to claim that anyone other than the government puts
>together FDA
>meetings].
>g. On April 8, 2003 11:01:11 PST, Roiland posted:
>"This is exactly what I was referring to...this was a "Ron Link"
>meeting. It is chock full of false statistics."
>[Libeling an FDA meeting and me in one post]
>h. On April 23, 2003 19:33:48 PST, Roiland posted:
>"As I recall, it was Brent and Ron that conspired to extort over
>$300,000 from TLC. Brent even admitted in detail how he and Ron did
>this."
>[Absolute lie].
>i. On April 23, 2003 20:22:16 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Ron just finished off evading all taxes for the year 2002, so now
>he's ready to go fishing for more extortion money to keep him going."
>[
>Absolute lie. I have always paid taxes on my income].
>j. On May 1, 2003 14:28:15 PST, Roiland posted:
>"But Brent Hanson and Ron Link teamed up to try and extort roughly
>$350,000 out of TLC. That was their third and last attempt at doing
>that".
>[Absolute lie].
>k. On May 11, 2203 17:24:04 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Ron DIDN'T make the 2nd call to Dr. U in which he claims to have
>discussed me, he DID make a previous call trying to extort money out of
>
>Dr. U though"
>[Absolute lie. I called Dr. Updegraff's office to ask
>if we could list him on our website and the response was yes. I also
>informed his office of Roiland's libel and claim to have been at an
>Updegraff event where he saw someone affiliated with me which was
>absolute nonsense].
>l. On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Dr. Kopon and Dr. Gemoules seem to be the only two competent doctors
>that participate here. Then there are the 3 Stooge doctors that hang
>around Ron Link like klingon dingle berries. (Minarik, Hartzok, and
>Russell)
>BTW, on the 21st the 3 Stooges are appearing with the Weakest Link in
>Tampa. Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
>[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
>auspices
>of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made the
>on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
>personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
>m. On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
>"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
>6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
>
>of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
>That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
>
>[Another threat]
>n. On June 19, 2003 04:36:22 PST, Roiland posted:
>"That is the reason some DO pay his extorntion [sic] money. They
>either pay, or he attacks them. One might wonder if his organized
>crime methods weren't what instigated the attack he suffered that left
>him with brain damage and personality disorders that rendered him
>incapable of working anymore."
>[I have never extorted money from anyone. I have never attacked
>surgeons in any forum or in the media. I do not have brain damage nor
>any personality disorders. I have worked since my attack in 1995 and am
>currently employed]
>o. On October 1, 2003 23:09:39 PST, Roiland posted:
>"It's amusing to see people thank Ron for creating SE. He didn't
>create squat. He stole someone elses website and presented it as his
>own with a different URL." [The site Roiland is referring to is
>www.kcenter.org is run by an eye care associate who consulted with me
>when he was building his website which actually emerged after
>www.surgicaleyes.org and looked very much like it because he used the
>bulletin board company I recommended.]
>p. On November 10, 2003 11:35:28 PST, Roiland posted:
>"You won't see SE pick on them because LVI pays them extortion
>money"
>[Absolute lie. LVI never even made a donation to my
>organization. We had accountants. We underwent a successful audit
>during the one year we had enough donations to necessitate an automatic
>
>audit and we hired an outside firm to do the audit. I have a copy of
>that successful audit.]
>q. On January 11, 2004 00:24:38 PST, Roiland posted:
>"I have mentioned this before, but it got ignored - Ron started the
>SE website by first taking some non-credit courses in marketing at USF,
>then cloning the structure and much of the content of another website."
>
>[Absolute lie. I took courses at USF after the creation of SE. The
>creator of another website, www.kcenter.org consulted with me, Roiland
>has it completely backward]
>r. On Oct 20, 2004, 10:15 pm, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes:
>"I forgot Ron Link was involved with that fiasco. Ironic that he has
>no qualms about disrupting other people's meetings, but he gets
>completely bent out of shape at the mere hint of anyone disrupting his
>silly meeting of malcontents (which was the last one they ever had).
>Incidentally, I was at a gathering involving LASIK surgeon Dr.
>Updegraff. I recognized one of Ron's top attack dogs there trying to
>stir up trouble."
>[I've never disrupted a meeting in my life and
>had no "top dog" at Dr. Updegraff's meeting.]
>s. On November 9, 2004 at 4:48 pm, Roiland posted:
>"You already embezzled all their available funds with your "website
>maintenance fees". You have sucked them dry already."
>[Absolute lie.]
>t. On Dec 27 2004, 1:00am, Roiland posted on alt.lasik-eyes: "I don't
>know why Ron keeps beating a dead horse, but he seems determined to
>propagate the idea that Surgical Eyes helped people. Without going into
>
>a long diatribe about how that is nonsense, I will give one example of
>what a disaster SE was.
>The Lasik Vision Institute or LVI is well known to have the highest
>incidence of complications of any chain of laser centers. Specifically,
>
>the Tampa branch of LVI run by Marco Musa had perhaps a world record
>number of complications in one day in that they infected the eyes of
>almost every one of their two dozen patients that they had one day. A
>T.V. news report was done on this and a class action suit was filed.
>In that T.V. report, they interviewed Ron Link. Incredibly, Link in
>effect defended LVI by saying that these types of complications were
>normal, and not unusual. In the same report, the most prominent LASIK
>surgeon in the Tampa Bay region said he's done over 30,000 procedures
>without a single infection. Sounds to me that all those infections in
>one day were far from business as usual. This is just one example of
>LVI's abuses. Now... one might ask why the headquarters of Surgical
>Eyes and the home of Ron Link is within walking distance of Tampa's
>LVI, yet they have never lifted a finger to attack them in any way at
>all.
>Someone suggested that organizations that "donate" some money to SE
>don't get negative reports and those that don't donate get "leaned on".
>
> [Absolute lie.]
>u. On December 27, 2004 at 10:14 pm, Roiland posted:
>"I have no doubt that more people have been hurt than helped by
>SE."
>[I have a few hundred emails to the contrary. For a public
>posting that is still up, see:
>http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Comments_Letters.htm]
>v. On Feb 26, 2005, at 4:21 am, Roiland posted:
>"There is no instrument used in the lasik procedure that isn't
>disposable.. Now when a company such as LVI decides to increase their
>profit margin by $50 on each eye by reusing those disposable $50
>blades.. then there are problems. Amazingly, even though these
>problems were known at the Tampa LVI, good ol' Ron Link got on camera
>and esplained that the incidence of over 20 eye infections in one day
>is not unusual for LASIK. Then Dr. Updegraff got on the same news
>report and said that in his entire career he had not had even one eye
>infection from LASIK. Sounds to me like someone is a liar and took
>some payola from LVI."
>[Absolute lie].
>w. Nov 27, 2005 at 3:32 pm "....Paula Cofer in Florida (who shares
>a trailer with Link)."
>[Absolute lie]
>x. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...$5000 to do a 2 hour transfer of the SE database?
>
>[Absolute lie]
>y. Dec 3, 8:30 pm ...disability payments
>[Absolute lie]
>(5) Roiland also emailed false and injurious statements to Optical
>Connections, Inc., a sponsor of The Surgical Eyes News,
>(http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Newslet...r_July_2003.htm)
>an e-journal dedicated to medical rehabilitation after refractive
>surgery. The Surgical Eyes Foundation was made aware of this by Sandra
>Zuccaro-Keyes, Optical Connection Inc.'s Director of Professional and
>Customer Service who opined that this was a libelous action by Roiland.
>
>
>Surgical Eyes, www.surgicaleyes.org, was an organization created to
>help people with unsuccessful refractive surgeries. It worked with a
>network of over 80 lasik surgeons and optometrists, was represented at
>national ophthalmic and optometric meetings, supported by many
>prominent lasik surgeons and optometrists, and received hundreds of
>letters and emails of thanks as well as recognition in the media for
>their work, and was featured in over 140 global media outlets (often in
>respected health-related magazines and reputable radio show formats).
>Unfortunately, there were those who sought to harm the work and founder
>of this organization through libelous statements and criminal threats.
>
>This public posting is a standing demand for Glenn Hagele to remove the
>offending material cited below at once. It is illegal to fabricate and
>publish falsehoods that harm and injure through systematic malicious
>intent. Retract your statements now. If
>you do not, I reserve the right to bring all relevant claims in court
>and to seek damages against you, personally.
>
>The problem is that Glenn Hagele refuses to acknowledge that what he
>represented as fact are lies. His meritless statements about Microsoft
>not donating to SE, stating that there was a connection between bad B&L
>press and SE donations, that ASCRS told you to get me (I'd like to see
>you explain that one their executive board), knowingly misrepresenting
>my position during the LASIK debate (Dr. Stulting would love to
>figuratively nail you to the wall for that boldface lie which he is
>willing to do in a sworn affidavit), claiming that we had a MARS at SE
>(there's one in outer space but there was never one in cyberspace of
>SE), lying about restrictions on the SE bulletin board, lying about
>what SE board members supposedly were told at meetings, accusing me of
>the inability to maintain appropriate cognitive thought, emotional
>stability, and sense of reason (never did I utter or write those
>words), part-time apologists working for SE, my supposedly endorsing
>the ASCRS guidelines (why don't you ask ASCRS if I endorsed t | | |