Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SO UTHERN D ISTRICT O F FLORIDA
CA SE NO .10-80149-CR-M A lG A (s)
UNITED STA TES OF AM ERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHRISTOPHER PA UL GEO RGE,
Defendant.
/
PLEA AG REEM ENT
TheUnitedStatesofAmericaandCHRISTOPHER PAULGEORGE(hereinaRerreferredtoas
çtthedefendanf')enterintothefollowingagreement:
1.
The defendantagreesto plead guilty to Count lofthe Superseding Indictm ent,w hich
charges the defendant with Racketeering Conspiracy,in violation of Title 18,United States Code,
Section l962(d). The United States agrees to dismiss the remaining counts ofthe Superseding
Indictm entasto thisdefendantaftersentencing.
The defendantisaw arethatthe sentence w illbe im posed by the Courtafterconsidering
theFederalSentencingGuidelinesandPolicyStatements(hereinafteristheSentencingGuidelines'')in
an advisory capacity. The defendantacknow ledges and understands thatthe Courtw illcom pute an
advisory sentence underthe Sentencing Guidelinesand thatthe applicable advisory guidelinesw illbe
determ ined by the Courtrelying in parton the results ofa Pre-sentence lnvestigation by the Court's
probation office,w hich investigation willcom mence aher the guilty plea has been entered. The
defendant isalso aw are that,under certain circum stances,the Courtm ay departfrom the applicable
advisoryguidelinerangeand im poseasentencethatiseitherm oresevereorlessseverethantheadvisory
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 2 of 14
guidelines range. The Courtis perm itted to tailor the ultim ate sentence in light of other statutory
concerns. Know ing these facts,the defendantunderstands and acknowledgesthatthe Courthas the
authority to im pose any sentence w ithin and up to the statutory m axim um authorized by law for the
offense identified in paragraph 1and thatthedefendantm ay notw ithdraw the plea solely asa resultof
the sentence im posed.
3.
Thedefendantalsounderstandsandacknow ledgesthattheCourtm ay im posea statutory
m axim um term ofim prisonm entofup to twenty yearsforthe offense setforth in Count1,follow ed by
a term ofup to three yearsofsupervised release. In addition to aterm ofim prisonm entand supervised
release,theCourtmay imposea fineofup to $250,000.00.
4.
The defendantfurtherunderstands and acknow ledgesthat,in addition to any sentence
im posed underparagraph 3 ofthisagreement,aspecialassessmentintheamountof$100.00 willbe
im posed on the defendant,w hich w illbe paid by the defendantatthe tim e ofim position ofsentence.
The defendantfurtherunderstandsand acknow ledgesthat,in addition to any sentence
im posed under paragraphs 2,3 and 4 ofthis agreem ent,forfeiture m ay be im posed as partofthat
sentence. The defendantagreesto the forfeiture ofallofhis right,title and interestto allassets listed
intheSuperseding Indictment,and/ortheirsubstitutes(hereinaher ditheassets'),whethercontrolled
individually orthrough defendant'sw holly owned orpartially owned com orations/companiesorthird-
parties,which are subjectto forfeiture pursuantto Title 18,United StatesCode,Sections 1963,
982(a)(1),981(a)(1)(C)and/orTitle21,UnitedStatesCode,Section853.Thedefendantalsoagreesto
assistthe United Statesin achieving forfeiture ofthe assetsand agreesto assistthe U nited Statesw ith
forfeiture ofsame,such assistance to include truthfultestim ony,especially to theextentthatthe assets
are in the nam es of corporations or other entities or individuals. The defendant know ingly and
2
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 3 of 14
voluntarilywaivesanyrighttoajurytrialoranyotheradversarialproceedingregardingtheassetsand
waivesanynotificationaboutforfeitureproceedings,whetheradministrativeorjudicial.Thedefendant
further w aives any statute of lim itations with respect to the com m encem ent of such forfeiture
proceedings,whetheradministrative orjudicial. The defendantalso waivesany defensesto the
forfeiture,includinganyclaim ofexcessivefineorpenaltyundertheEighthA m endm ent.Thedefendant
also agreesto waiveany appealofthe forfeiture.The defendantfurtheracknow ledgcsthatthe property
forfeitedcannot,eitherinwholeorinpart,beusedto satisfyanyobligationthedefendantmayhavefor
any federal,state orlocaltaxes,interestand/orotherpenaltieswhich m ay now existorwhichm ay com e
into existence.
6.
TheOfficeoftheUnitedStatesAttorneyfortheSouthernDistrictofFlorida(hereinafter
ttthisOff5ce'')reservestherighttoinform theCourtandtheprobationom ceofa1lfactspertinenttothe
sentencing process,including allrelevant inform ation concerning the offenses com m itted,w hether
chargedornot,aswellasconcerningthedefendantandthedefendant'sbackground.Subjectonlyto
the expressterm sofany agreed-upon sentencing recom m endationscontained in this agreem ent,this
O ffice further reserves the right to m ake any recomm endation as to the quality and quantity of
punishm ent.
The United Statesagreesthatitwillrecom m end atsentencing thatthe Courtreduce by
three levelsthe advisory sentencing guideline levelapplicable to the defendant'soffense,pursuantto
Section 3E1.1oftheSentencingGuidelines,baseduponthedefendant'srecognitionand am rm ativeand
tim ely acceptance ofpersonalresponsibility. How ever,the U nited Statesw illnotbe required to m ake
thissentencingrecommendationifthedefendant:(1)failsorrefusestomakefull,accurateandcomplete
disclosuretotheprobationofficeofthecircumstancessurroundingtherelevantoffenseconduct;(2)is
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 4 of 14
found to havemisrepresented factsto thegovemmentpriortoenteringthispleaagreement;or(3)
com m itsany m isconductafterentering intothispleaagreem ent,including butnotlim itedto comm itting
a state orfederaloffense ormaking false statem entsorm isrepresentationsto any governm entalentity
or om cial. ln the event the applicable advisory guideline level calculation exceeds the statutory
m aximum ,theUnitedStateswillnotopposedefendant'srequestthattheCourtreducethedefendant's
advisory guideline range by three levelsfrom the statutory m axim um sentence in consideration forthe
defendant'stim ely acceptance ofresponsibility.
8.
Thedefendantisaw arethatthe sentence hasnotyetbeen determ ined bythe Court.The
defendantalso isawarethatany estim ateoftheprobablesentencing range orsentencethatthedefendant
m ay receive,w hether that estim ate com es from the defendant's attorney,the governm ent, or the
probation office,is a prediction,nota prom ise,and isnotbinding on the governm ent,the probation
om ce orthe Court. The defendantunderstandsfurtherthatany recom m endation thatthe governm ent
m akesto the Courtasto sentencing,w hetherpursuantto thisagreem entorotherwise,isnotbinding on
theCourtandtheCourtmay disregardtherecommendationin itsentirety.Thedefendantunderstands
and acknowledges,as previously acknow ledged in paragraph 2 above,thatthe defendantm ay not
w ithdraw hisplea based upontheCourt'sdecision notto acceptasentencing recom m endation madeby
thedefendant,thegovernment,or a recommendation madejointlyby both thedefendantand the
governm ent.
9.
Thedefendantagreesthatheshallcooperatefullywith thisOfficeby:(a)providing
truthfulandcom pleteinform ation andtestim ony,andproducingdocum ents,recordsand otherevidence,
whencalleduponbythisOffice,whetherininterviews,beforeagrandjury,oratanytrialorotherCourt
proceeding;and (b)appearing atsuch grandjury proceedings,hearings,trials,and otherjudicial
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 5 of 14
proceedings,and atm eetings,asmay be required by thisOm ce. In addition,the defendantagreesthat
he willnotprotectany person orentity through false inform ation orom ission,thathe w illnotfalsely
im plicate any person orentity,and thathe thathe willnotcom m itany furthercrim es.
l0.
This Office reserves the right to evaluate the nature and extent of the defendant's
cooperation and to m ake thatcooperation,orlack thereof,known tothe Courtatthetim eofsentencing.
IfinthesoleandunreviewablejudgmentofthisOfficethedefendant'scooperationisofsuchquality
and significance to the investigation orprosecution ofothercrim inalm attersasto warrantthe Court's
dow nward departure from the advisory sentencing range calculated underthe Sentencing Guidelines
and/orany applicablem inim um m andatory sentence,thisO ffice m ay m akea m otion priorto sentencing
pursuantto Section 5K 1.1 ofthe Sentencing G uidelines and/orTitle 18,United States Code,Section
3553/),orsubsequenttosentencingpursuanttoRule35oftheFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure,
inform ing the Courtthatthe defendanthasprovided substantialassistance and recom m ending thatthe
defendant'ssentence be reduced. Thedefendantunderstandsand agrees,however,thatnothing in this
agreem entrequiresthisOffice to fileany such m otions,and thatthisO ffice'sassessm entofthe quality
and significance ofthe defendant's cooperation shallbe binding as itrelatesto the appropriatenessof
thisOm ce's filing ornon-filing ofa m otion to reduce sentence.
ll.
The defendantunderstands and acknow ledgesthatthe Courtisunderno obligation to
granta m otion for reduction ofsentence filed by the governm ent. ln addition,the defendantfurther
understands and acknowledges that the Court is under no obligation of any type to reduce the
defendant'ssentence because ofthe defendant'scooperation.
The defendant is aware that Title 18,United States Code,Section 3742 affbrds the
defendantthe rightto appealthe sentence im posed in thiscase. Acknow ledging this,and in exchange
5
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 6 of 14
forthe undertakingsm ade by the United States in thispleaagreem ent,the defendanthereby waivesall
rightsconferred by Section 3742 to appealany sentence im posed,including any restitution order,orto
appealthe m anner in which the sentence was im posed,unless the sentence exceeds the m axim um
perm itted by statuteoristhe resultofan upward departure and/ora variance from the guideline range
thatthecourtestablishesatsentencing.Thedefendantfurtherunderstandsthatnothing inthisagreem ent
shallaffectthe governm ent'srightand/orduty to appealas setforth in Title l8,United States Code,
Section 3742(19.However,iftheUnitedStatesappealsthedefendant'ssentencepursuanttoSection
37424t9,thedefendantshallbereleased from theabovewaiverofappellaterights.By signingthis
agreement,the defendant acknow ledges that he has discussed the appealw aiver set forth in this
agreem entwith hisattorney. The defendantfurtheragrees,togetherw ith the U nited States,to request
thatthe districtcourtenter a specific finding that the defendant's w aiver ofhis rightto appealthe
sentenceto be im posed in thiscase wasknow ing and voluntary.
13.
The defendantfurtherwaivesany rightto file any m otion orm ake any claim ,w hether
under28U.S.C.j92255,2254,2241,oranyotherprovisionofIaw,tocollaterallyattackhisconviction,
hissentence,orthem annerin w hich sentence wasim posed,unlessthe sentence exceedsthe m axim um
perm itted by statute.
l4.
Thedefendantconfirm sthatheisguiltyofthe offensesto whichheispleadingguilty;that
hisdecision to plead guilty isthe decision thathehasm ade;and thatnobody hasforced,threatened,or
coerced him into pleading guilty. The defendantaffirm sthathe has discussed the m atterofpleading
guilty in theabove-referenced casesthoroughly w ith hisattorney.Thedefendantfurtheraffirm sthathis
discussionsw ith hisattorney have included discussion ofpossible defensesthathe m ay raise ifthe case
w ere to go to trial,as wellas possible issues and argum ents that he m ay raise at sentencing. The
6
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 7 of 14
defendantadditionally affirm sthathe is satisfied with the representation provided by hisattorney. The
defendant accordingly affirm s that he is entering into this agreem ent knowingly, voluntarily,and
intelligently,and with the benefit of 1 11, com plete,and effective assistance by his attorney. The
defendantaccordingly agreesthatby entering into thisagreem enthew aivesany rightto Gleany m otion
ormakeanyclaim,whetherunder28U.S.C.jj2255,2254,2241,oranyotherprovisionofIaw,that
conteststhe effkctivenessofcounsel'srepresentation up to the tim e ofthe entry ofhisguilty plea.
This is the entire agreem ent and understanding between the U nited States and the
defendant. There are no otheragreem ents,prom ises,representations,orunderstandings.
W IFREDO A .FERRER
UN ITED STA TES A TTORNEY
Date: ?.
'
t)
= /
r /'
PA UL F.SCHW ARTZ
A SSISTAN T UN ITED STATES ATTORN EY
z-4r. :;-#
D ate:/.L
,j
STZ DER DICKSON
A SSISTAN T UN ITED STATES A TTORN EY
Date:zo d .
'/
LA W REN CE D .LW ECCHIO
A SSISTAN T UN ITED ST TES A TO RN EY
Ilate: # / (1
F
Ilate:(0hfp
D
DA
TTORN EY
D FEN DAN T
Z
C
H R PAU L G EORG E
DEFEN DAN T
7
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 8 of 14
U NITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
SOU THERN D ISTRICT OF FLORID A
CASE N O .10-80149-CR-M ARRA/l1OPK m S(s)
U NITED STA TES OF A M ERICA ,
Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER PAU L GEORGE,
STIPU LA TED STA TEM ENT O F FA CTS
The United StatesofAm erica and CHRISTO PHER PA UL GEORGE enterinto the follow ing
stipulated statem entoffactsin supportofthe defendant'splea ofguilty:
Hadthiscaseproceeded to trial,thegovernmentwould haveproven thatthedefendantconspired
to participate in crim inalactivities w ith a group of individuals and entities associated in fact as a
crim inal entem rise,the activities of which affected interstate comm erce. The crim inalentem rise
engaged in a pattern ofracketeering activity.
The governm entw ould have established through testim ony provided by coconspirators,Court
authorized w ire interceptions and docum entary evidence that the defendant initiated, organized,
supervised and m anaged the crim inalenterprise. The evidence w ould establish thatin orabout2007,
co-defendantJeffrey G eorge wasintroduced to a corruptphysician who worked atapain m anagem ent
clinic ow ned by a coconspirator.Jeffrey Georgew asaw are thatthe coconspiratorwashim self,a drug
abuser.ThecorruptphysicianadvisedJeffreyGeorgethathe(George)couldmakelargesumsofmoney
byopeninghisow npainclinic.Jeffrey Georgecontacted hisI7rOtIAerCHRISTO PHER PAUL GEO RG E
and discussed the opening ofa pain clinic. In or about2008,Jeffrey and CHRISTOPHER PA UL
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 9 of 14
G EORGE financed the establishm ent of South Florida Pain. They initially em ployed the corrupt
physician inthe clinic.Thereafter,CHRISTOPHER PA UL GEORGE and Jeffrey G eorge had adispute
overm oney and Jeffrey Georgeopened a separate pain clinic in Palm Beach County.CHRISTO PHER
PAUL GEORGE solicited physicians through advertisem ents placed on Craig's list. The corrupt
physician introduced CHRISTOPHER PA UL GEO RG E to pharm aceutical w holesalers.
CHRISTOPH ER PAUL GEORGE initially usedthecorruptphysician'sDEA num berto ordercontrolled
substances.Based upon theadviceofthecorruptphysician,CH RISTOPHER PA UL GEORGE decided
thatthe clinicw ould onlyacceptcash and creditcardsand notallow insurance plans.CHRISTO PHER
PAUL GEORGE discussed the preparation ofmedicalform sand patientfilesw ith coconspirators. He
advertised theclinicin localnewspapers.Thepain clinic slow ly began to attractpatients.He em ployed
additionalcorruptphysiciansin the clinic.Based upon furtheradvice received from corruptphysicians
and other pain clinic ow ners, CHRISTOPHER PA UL G EORGE discussed w ith the coconspirator
physicianstheprescribing ofthefollow ing:180-240 oxycodone30 m g.,90-120 oxycodone 15m g.,and
30-50 2 mg.Alprazolam (Xanax). CHRISTOPHER PAUL GEORGE understood thatthe patients
dem anded prescriptions in those quantitiesorthey would frequentcom peting pain clinics. H e further
understood thatpatients would travelfrom Tennessee,Kentucky,O hio and W estV irginia and other
states in orderto visitpain clinics in Florida. Eventually,approxim ately 80-90% ofpatientsvisiting
CHRISTO PHER PA UL GEORGE'Sclinicscam e from outside the State ofFlorida.
CHRISTO PHER PA UL GEORGE closed South Florida Pain and opened A m erican Pain in
Brow ard and Palm Beach counties. He also opened Executive Pain in Palm Beach County.
CHRISTO PHER PAUL G EORGE isaconvicted felon based upon aconviction forsteroid distribution
and thereforeplacedtheownership oftheclinicsin nom ineenam es.He solicited a friend,co-defendant
Ethan Baum hoff,to bethe nom inee ow nerofAm erican Pain. CHRISTO PHER PA UL GEO RG E also
2
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 10 of 14
opened twopharmacies,BocaDrugsand QuickPharm. Heplacedthepharmaciesundernominee
ow nership. Hisfriend,co-defendantA ndrew Harrington,w asthe nom inee ownerofBoca Drugsand
co-defendantDarylStewartwasthenomineeownerofouickpharm .Inorabout2010,CHRISTOPHER
PAUL GEORGE m oved A m erican Pain to a location in Lake W orth. The new location w asa 20,000
square footfacility,one ofthe largestin the U nited States.
Am erican Pain em ployed five physicians at one tim e,and also hired part-tim e physicians.
Executive Pain em ployed three physicians. ln Am erican Pain,in excess of500 patitntsperday w ere
exam ined by the coconspiratorphysicians. Both Am erican and Executive Pain were staffed by friends
and associates ofCHRISTOPHER PAUL GEORGE. Co-defendantDerik Nolan wasthe head of
security atAm erican Pain and wasresponsible form aintainingorderam ongthepatients.W itnesseswill
ttstify thatthetypicalpatientw asapproxim ately thirty yearsold and appeared to be adrug addict.The
patientswould presentw ith a M Rlreportorwould be referred to a m obile M ltlfacility located in the
parking lotofan adultentertainm entbusiness and elsewhere. The patients,very ohen,traveled w ith
fam ily and friendsfrom Tennessee,Kentucky and Ohio canying large sum sofcash. V irtually aIlthe
Mm 'swererelattdtoallegedneckorbackinjuries.Thepatientswouldofttnpaybribestotheclinic
staffinordertoexpeditetheirexam sw iththephysicians.The coconspiratorphysiciansconducted brief,
cursory exam s in orderto insulate them selvesand to m ake itappearto be Iegitim ate medicaloffices.
Tht coconspiratorphysicianswtre paid on a per-patientbasisand therefore had the incentiveto seeas
m any patients aspossible. The coconspiratorphysiciansw ert paid both by check and in cash. Tht
coconspiratorphysiciansprimarilyprescribedthelargestamountsofoxycodone(180-240permonth)
in orderto satisfythepatients.Thewire interception establishesthatCH RISTOPHER PA UL GEO RG E
and coconspiratorsdiscusstd the am ountsofpillsprescribed by the coconspirator physicians and the
necessity to satisfythe patients'dem ands.Such activity iscontrary to the requirem entfora legitim ate
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 11 of 14
m edicalpurpose and violatesthe usualand custom ary standard ofcare.The coconspiratorphysicians
did notobtainpriorm edicalrecords,orprescribeany altem ativetreatm entm odalities.Further,they did
notm akereferralsto specialists.Virtuallyeveryoneexam ined bythecoconspiratorphysiciansreceived
a prescription forcontrolled substances.Therew asno individualization oftreatm entasrequired under
applicable federaland Florida law .
Records obtained in the search ofAm erican Pain establish thatapproxim ately 6,155,020 units
ofoxycodone were ordered by physiciansem ployed by South Florida and A m erican Pain. W itnesses
w illtestify thatthe oxycodone pillsm aintained attheclinicsw erethen dispensed from the inventories
to individuals seeking such m edication.W itnessesw illtestify thatapproxim ately sixty percentofthe
prescriptionsissued by Am erican Pain physicianswere filledatotherpharm acies.Theevidence would
establish thatapproxim ately 18 m illion unitsofoxycodone were prescribed from A m erican Pain. The
coconspiratorphysiciansinA m erican Painranked withintheninepurchasersofoxycodoneinthenation
forhighestdispensing physiciansin the nation in 2009.The co-defendantphysiciansin ExecutivePain
ranked in the top 60 in the nation. The court authorized w ire interceptions establish that,
CHM STOPHER PAU L GEO RGE has infonned coconspirators that his clinics have generated
approxim ately forty m illion dollarsin proceeds.
Executive Pain w as established by defendantCHRISTOPHER PA UL G EORGE primarily to
receive those individualsw ho had been discharged from AM ERICAN PAIN due to intravenous drug
use,abuse of m edications and other reasons. Executive Pain em ployed three fulltim e doctors and
severalparttim edoctors. Theevidencew illestablish thatExecutivePain existed solelytodispenseand
distributeoxycodone pillsw ithouta legitim ate m edicalpurpose.
Thedefendantclinics(American andExecutive)dispensed controlled substancesin-house.
Severalofthe individualsw ho dispensed the pills had usually no m edicaltraining orexperience. In
4
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 12 of 14
Am erican Pain,the pills were dispensed by am ong other persons,an individualwho was otherwise
em ployed asa bikinim odel.DefendantCH RISTOPH ER PAU L GEORGE and coconspiratorsordered
controlled substancesthrough the useofthe coconspiratorphysicians'DEA registration num bers.The
physicianswerepaidextramoney($1,000-$2,000perweek)inordertomaintaininventoriesofdrugs
attheclinics.
W itnesses w illtestify thatin both Am erican and Executive Pain,outof state patients would
attem ptto concealcontaintrsGlled withurinew hichtheyw ould carry intotheclinicbathroom sin order
to satisfy theurinalysistest.Thebathroom sw ertcleaned on adaily basisand the urinecontaintrswere
discovered.Thisactivity wasknown to alltheclinicem ployeesincludingthecoconspiratorphysicians.
Theevidenceestablishesthatpillsfrom thecoconspiratorphysicianspillinventoriesm aintained
atthe dtftndants'clinicsw ert transferred betwten physicians asneeded,withoutthe docum entation
required by the DEA. The evidence willfurtherestablish thatinitially thecoconspiratorphysicians
failed to inspecttheirpillinventories,asrequired by Federallaw . Co-defendantEthan Baum hoff, the
m anagerofAm erican Pain clinicwould testify thatquantitiesofpillsw ere repeatedly m issing from the
invtntoriesm aintained attht clinics.
ThewireinterceptionsestablishthM CHRISTOPHER PA UL GEO RG E instructedco-defendant
Andrew Harrington to lie to D EA inspectors regarding the operation of Boca D rugs. The wire
interceptions furtherestablish thatthe coconspiratorphysicians m ade m aterially false statem ents on
form s w hich were m ailed to pharm aceutical wholesalers. Such m isrepresentations included the
percentage of patients from out of state and the percentage of prescribed m edication w hich w ere
controlled substances.
Coconspiratortestim ony w illestablish thattht m otive in establishing the pain clinicsw asto
m ake as m uch m oney as possible. They w ould testify that CHRISTO PH ER PAUL GEORGE
5
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 13 of 14
understood thatthe m ore pillsthatwere prescribed by thephysicians,the m ore m oney he would m ake.
The coconspiratorsw ould testify thatCHRISTOPHER PAUL GEORG E urged hisphysiciansto (kkeep
thtpatitnt'shappy''by prescribingtht am ountofoxycodont thatthey rtquested. Coconspiratorsw ill
testifythatCHRISTO PHER PA UL GEORGE infornw dthephysiciansthatifthepatientsdidnotrtceive
thequantity ofoxycodonetheydesired,thepatientsw ould go to com peting clinics.Coconspiratorsw ill
explainthatCHRISTOPHER PA UL GEO RG E interview ed physiciansand hiredthem based upontheir
w illingness to prescribe large quantitits of drugs. The testim ony w illestablish that their was no
legitim ate m edicalpurpose in prescribing the quantitiesofoxycodone.
ln sum ,the evidence would establish that CH RISTOPH ER PAUL G EORGE and his co-
defendantclinicsw erenotlegitim atem edicalfacilities,butratheracrim inalenterprisewhich had agoal
togenerattcrim inalproceedsthroughtheunlawfuldistribution anddispensingofcontrolledsubstances
withouta legitim ate m edicalpurpose,and outsidethe usualand custom ary standard ofcare.
Defendantco sTopc R pAc GEoRGE alsopadicipatedinnon-m edicallyrelatedcrim inal
conduct. CHRISTOPH ER PAU L GEORGE financed a tim e-share resale business operated by codefendantChristopherHutson.The coconspiratorsobtained custom erliststhrough corruptbrokersand
hired salespeople w ho had previoustelem arketing fraud experience. The telem arketerswould m ake
naturally falsem isrepresentationsto custom ersin orderto inducethe custom ersto pay a m arketing and
salesfee.Thecustomersbelievedthatthebusinesswasadvertisingand sellingtheirtimeshareswhen
in truth and in factno such activity wasbeing conducted. The fraudulentbusinessgrossed m illionsof
dollarsin crim inalproceeds.
CHRISTOPHER PAUL GEORGE,Jeffrey George,DerikN olan and Gino M arquezunlaw fully
rtstrained and assaulted an individualwho w assuspected ofstealing money from coconspirators. The
victim ,Robby Eddy w asa friend ofthe GEORG E brothers. AtJeffrey George'sresidence Eddy was
6
Case 9:10-cr-80149-KAM Document 567 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2011 Page 14 of 14
handcuffed by Derik N olan. Jeffrey G eorge fired aw eapon atthe tloornearEddy'shead in orderto
scare him into adm itting the theA. Eddy denied taking the m oney and w as laterreleased.
Theabove-describedactivitieswerecomm itted intheSouthernDistrictofFloridaandaffected
interstatecom m ercethroughtheacquisitionofcontrolled substancesfrom m anufacturerslocated outside
ofFlorida and the solicitation ofindividualsfrom otherstates.
W IFRED O A .FERRER
UNITED STATES ATTORN EY
Ilate:z'*3
r
z
.
.
PAUL #.SCHWARTZ
A SSISTAN T UN ITED STATES A TTORN EY
Date:/,-% z-qr z
,
r ??''
D ate:t'-=
z zz
-
T
'
LA W REN CE D .LW ECCH IO
A SSISTAN T UN ITED STATES ATTORN EY
x-f tf
STM D
A SSIS
I
l
a
t
e
:v//
oT((((
& W
D ICK SON
N
TED S
F
HAD D
A T ORN E OR DEFE
TES ATT
ANT
-. ,
C ' OPH ER PAUL G EORG E
DEFEN DAN T
EY