Re: Ron Link Victim of Glenn Hagele Fraud and Defamation
Glenn - USAEyes.org
for years now. I have not defamed you and everything you present here
as "evidence" is either factually accurate or clearly opinion. It
seems that every few months you get a burr under your saddle and make
these unfounded accusations against me.
I talked with Paul Quin (one 'n', not two) who seems a reasonable and
knowledgeable chap. He may be your attorney, but you have not retained
him to represent you in any defamation action against me. I very
highly recommend that you actually do sit down with this attorney and
receive the advice that you so clearly need.
The bottom line is that your ongoing threats of litigation are
obviously hollow and your accusations are without merit. The only
reason I can surmise for your continued attacks is because you desire
to cause damage to my reputation and my ability to continue in my
chosen profession. If you want to sue me, then sue. Otherwise, kindly
keep your accusations to yourself.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
that you have not retained him to represent you in a defamation claim
against me?
A "truce" is simple. You stop making false accusations against me and
I will stop pointing out that the accusations are false. In fact, the
"truce" is automatic. You simply need to stop spreading the bovine
fertilizer.
I have not libeled you, therefore there is nothing to retract. Whether
you are willing and/or able to accept it, that is the truth.
Perhaps I need to be a bit more blunt for you to understand: Sue me or
shut up. See how simple this can all be.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
use, so I will repeat what I have already said. Sue me or shut up.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Neither I nor Mr. Quin said anything about a defamation action being
filed. Read the words, Ron. Mr. Quin said that you had not retained
him to represent you in a defamation action against me. Do you dispute
this fact?
As for the rest, I will use the same small words, but try yelling:
SUE ME OR SHUT UP.
I apologize to others' sensitive ears that are reading this.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
respond to what is actually said. I'm not talking about if you have
used Mr. Quin's services the past for other purposes. I am not talking
about if you have filed a claim. Mr. Quin stated that you had not
retained him to represent you in a defamation action against me. Is
this an accurate statement or not?
As for the rest of your accusations, they are without merit. I have
not defamed you in any manner, therefore I have nothing to retract. If
I did have something to retract I most certainly would...and in the
past I have retracted or clarified misstatements.
No once more Ron. Sue me or shut up.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
nothing to weasel out of.
Once again, Ron. Sue me or shut up.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
I am very familiar with all statements I've made about you, including
those you have quoted. Each and every one is accurate or I have
legitimate reason to believe are accurate. Those that are my opinion
are clearly my opinion.
I have not lied about you and I have no reason to lie about you.
Frankly, the truth is bizarre enough that I doubt anyone could
manufacture a lie that could match the truth.
You have not, nor will you ever, be able to prove something that does
not exist...however I'm quite sure you will persist anyway.
As always; Sue me or shut up.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
shut up."
I vote for "Sue". Glenn Hagele can be served at
* 8543 Everglade Drive
* Sacramento CA 95826-3616
This address is listed on his web site as the address for "Council for
Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance", but in fact it is his home
address.
When I sued him, I found his responses to be quite entertaining.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>other services.
Wait a minute. Mr. Quin stated that he had represented you in the
past. Now you say he has not. Is this going to be another Dan
Reinstein affair?
>This can be easily rectified. Lies represented as facts, always have
>been and always will be ethically reprehensible, and last but not least
>- illegal.
I totally agree, Ron. However your accusation that I have lied about
you is not accurate. Come to think of it, your accusation that I have
lied about you is actually a lie. Interesting.
>Part of what prompted me to action was recently seeing the movie, Good
>Night and Good Luck.
Oh, that is a riot. So you still have that hero complex.
I actually knew Fred Friendly (rest his soul). Not well, but I enjoyed
our encounters and conversations. I see absolutely nothing of you in
him or in what I know about Edward Murrow, who predates me. You can,
of course, play "Mr.Smith Goes To Court" all you want. Just don't
accuse me of lying about you on the way. Find some other imaginary
demon to battle.
As always: Sue me or shut up.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
You are easily entertained, Hanson. My response was to have the suit
dismissed on our first motion. You lost. Why you find losing a lawsuit
entertaining is beyond me.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
"Is Glenn Hagele a deadbeat?" poll at
http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=75
So far Glenn is losing.
serebel
time.
Link, You've really out done yourself this time. You're playing the
fool so well.
Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous you sound?
Ragnar
you note below.... all the statements are accurate!
Ragnar
this universe.. in a parallel universe that you get to by travelling
through a wormhole near the Betelgeuse star system. Don't you watch
the Twilight Zone reruns?
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Do you really think that anyone is fooled by you ignoring what was
actually said and changing it with every post to fit your needs at the
moment? As of this morning you had not retained Mr. Quin to represent
you an any action against me, but you did make a big deal about "your
attorney". According to Mr. Quin he has represented you in the past,
but then you come back and say he has not. Now you say he did. Classic
Ron Link.
It is impossible for me to retract lies that don't exist. You can
whine on and on about your perceived slights, but facts is facts even
if you don't like them. I have nothing to retract.
As always: Sue or shut up, Ron Link.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
not lied about you. You demand a retraction of the truth. Sorry, that
is not something I do.
As always: Sue or shut up, Ron Link.
Glenn Hagele
Glenn - USAEyes.org
reasonable reason to believe it is factual, or it is opinion. I
realize that the truth about you could be considered by some
embarrassing and even pathetic, but it is still the truth. I can
understand why you would not want some truths about you being publicly
revealed, but that is not really my problem.
I have responded to your accusations. In fact I've responded nearly a
dozen times in the last day. Your accusations are without substance.
Your accusations are without merit. I have not defamed you. I have
nothing to defend nor do I have anything to retract.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Link. I have not lied about you. Everything I've said is a fact, I
have reasonable reason to believe it is factual, or it is opinion.
I have responded to your accusations many times now. You have received
the same response each time. You will continue to receive the same
response each time.
Your accusations are without substance. Your accusations are without
merit. I have not defamed you. I have nothing to defend nor do I have
anything to retract.
As always: Sue or keep your mouth shut, Ron Link.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
over and each time expecting a different result.
I have not lied about or defamed Ron Link. There is nothing to
retract.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
have I defamed you and I'll gladly use it.
As always: Sue or shut up, Ron Link.
Glenn Hagele
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Link had the money to pay his lawyer he wouldn't be jumping up and down
right now on this thread. He would have paid the lawyer to file the
lawsuit.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
brilliant and has advised him exactly how fruitless a lawsuit without
merit would be.
Who would of thought that it would be the LAWYER who comes out looking
better than all the rest?!
8^)
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn Hagele Fraud and Defamation), not me. Any lies in the first post
of this thread are yours.
I am not concerned if I do or do not amuse your attorney. In my
telephone conversation with Mr. Quin he said he had not been retained
by you for any action against me, and he really didn't seem to know
who I was. I believe him much more than I believe you. (Again, the
attorney is coming out looking better than anyone else!)
If you think Dr. Stulting or Dr. Grimmett have something to say on
your behalf, then sue me and allow them to say it in court. I have not
lied about you to either of them. I have not defamed you to either of
them. Everything I have said about you to Dr. Stulting, Dr. Grimmett,
and to anyone else is accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is
accurate, or is stated clearly as an opinion.
Since you continue to repeat the same meritless accusations I find
that I am forced to repeat the same response again and again. I have
not lied about you and I have no reason to lie about you. I have not
defamed you. I have nothing to retract.
Frankly, the truth is bizarre enough that I doubt anyone could
manufacture a lie that could match the truth. This thread is a case in
point.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Glenn - USAEyes.org
said about you to anybody is accurate, I have legitimate reason to
believe is accurate, or is clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
said about you to anybody is accurate, I have legitimate reason to
believe is accurate, or is clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As far as I know Ron Link does not represent Doyle Stulting, MD. If
Dr. Stulting had something to say to me then I'm sure he would have
said something on one of the many occasions in the past several years
when we talked at medical conferences or at the FDA.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Link.
Ragnar
problem is Hanson... no the problem is LASIK.. no.. the problem is
RK.. no... the problem is SERebel... no the problem is the new people
at SE that won't give you the $45,000 you demanded from them... no...
the problem is Y O U.
You have more problems than you have fingers to point at people with.
On 3 Dec 2005 13:02:11 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>The problem is you Glenn. The very characteristics that make you such a
>good marketer is the one that makes you believe that lying is ok
>because it comes from your lips. There's got to be a psychological
>label for your condition, so whatever it is, you're a shining
>textbook example.
>
>The problem is that refuse to acknowledge that what you represent as
>fact are actually lies. Your 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 -
>you simply made it up like you did everything else)- it just goes on
>and on.
>
>You just don't get it Glenn. People and documents exist to expose each
>and every one of your lies.
>
>You can't just make things up sand libel me simply because it suits
>your agenda. You stood to gain by telling the lies you did, and that
>too, is a prosecutable offense.
>
>Mr. Quin and I have a strategy. Things in play and others waiting in
>the wings. We have multiple options. Don't you understand that the
>more you deny, the harder the legal hammer will fall when your guilt is
>revealed? Have you ever asked yourself what a loss of credibility would
>do to your business? Jeez Glenn, the solution is easy - simply retract
>your lies.
>
>I could care less about your opinion of me Glenn Hagele. You're
>entitled to that. What you're not entitled to Glenn Hagele; is to break
>the law.
Ragnar
pleased with you though.
And regarding breaking the law.... the law is most concerned about
monetary issues one way or another. Gee, I wonder if any laws were
broken in your acquisition of funds from SE.. cough cough... $5000 to
do a 2 hour transfer of the SE database? cough cough... disability
payments? cough cough cough.... etc. etc.
On 3 Dec 2005 17:06:27 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'll keep it simple for you Christopher Roiland - the only problem that
>you really need to worry about is that you broke the law.
>
>I don't have any issues with anyone directly or indirectly involved
>with refractive surgery other than you and Glenn Hagele.
>
>I actually feel sorry for you because you are obviously in love with
>what you perceive to be cleverness on your part when it's nothing more
>than shallow fabrication. I hope things get better in your life.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Link.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Link.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Ragnar
scare the millions of LASIK patients into thinking they had problems
that they did not have. It specifically pursued post-op patients in
their weeks after surgery when they had temporary healing issues and
made them think like they had a disaster. This is how they drummed
up business.
By the way... you had radial keratotomy which is a far less effective
treatment than LASIK and very rarely done anymore.... but.. it still
must have been very effective on you... no glasses.
On 5 Dec 2005 19:02:27 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>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
You on the other hand are wrong about 99% of the time. When you find
out who SERebel is, ask him politely for an education. He might just
attempt to teach you.
On 6 Dec 2005 21:40:12 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>Christopher Roiland (Ragnar), you live in a world of delusion. Surgical
>Eyes was incorporated as a 501(c)3, recognized by the US government as
>such, underwent yearly audits, and helped many patients who required
>post-surgical remediation. If I understand you correctly, all the LASIK
>surgeons and optometrists who helped at SE, were listed there, held
>meetings at their offices for us, were only doing so to treat
>"temporary" problems? You're lying again. Not only that, you're calling
>all these doctors liars as well for treating "temporary" healing issues
>that in many cases were chronic or could not be rectified.
>
>Retract your lies or you will lose severely in court. I know you're
>stubborn, but I didn't think you were so stupid as to risk huge legal
>bills trying to defend the indefensible cited below:
>
>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/Newsletter/07_03/Newsletter_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.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Either follow through on your often repeated hollow threat
to sue me for defamation so I can prove you wrong in court, or keep
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Either follow through on your often repeated hollow threat
to sue me for defamation so I can prove you wrong in court, or keep
Ragnar
to scare people with successful refractive surgeries into pursuing
premature "rehabilitation" before the procedure was even given a
chance to heal.
Ragnar
The key word being LONG-TERM dear. You aggresively preyed upon naive
laymen citizens who didn't know any better and scared them into
seeking out premature rehabilitation. Frankly, no LASIK/PRK patient
should consider anything until 3 months post op... and unless there is
some dire need, waiting a year would be appropriate.
Just yesterday, some lady was all bent out of shape with fear and her
husband just had the surgery 1 day earlier!!
On 8 Dec 2005 21:33:13 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>Christopher Roiland (Ragnar) There is scientific data that exists in
>peer-reviewed ophthalmic literature of long-term complications that
>require medical remediation like contact lenses, dry eye treatments,
>further surgery, etc.
>
>Surgical Eyes was created under the mission statement submitted and
>accepted by the IRS and operated successfully in service to that
>mission for several years. Retract your lie.
>
>While you're at it, retract the other lies below.
>
>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.
>