Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Diet Pill Vendor Assails Witness : Seller Claims Document Written by Postal Service, Not Doctor

April 29, 1986|BILL RITTER | San Diego County Business Editor

CARLSBAD — The makers of a controversial diet pill say a key document in the government's case against it was written by U.S. Postal Service authorities and not by the expert witness who signed it under oath.

The expert's declaration was used by the Postal Service to justify its seizure of $4 million worth of customer orders for Grapefruit 45, a diet pill made and marketed by Carlsbad-based World Communications Inc. Authorities claimed that Grapefruit 45's televised ads were misleading and violated a previous consent agreement that prohibited WCI from making false claims.

According to documents filed in federal court in Nevada and New Jersey, WCI claims that the Postal Service's expert witness merely signed a blank page--a certification paragraph declaring under oath that the preceding statements are true--before the declaration was actually written.

In addition, the company contends that the Postal Service authored the declaration.

The witness, Dr. Paul Scipione of New Jersey, insisted last week that he helped write the declaration, which summarized his criticisms of WCI's televised ads for Grapefruit 45.

He acknowledged, however, that he couldn't recall whether his signature was written on a blank piece of paper or whether it was attached to the declaration later.

Scipione said that signing a blank declaration would be "inconsistent with my own standards--I don't think I'd be dumb enough to do that."

But he conceded that "it's difficult for me to totally reconstruct" events from 15 months ago.

"I actively participated in writing . . . most of the statement," said Scipione. "So the assumption that I had nothing to do with writing (the declaration) and, by implication, that what was in it didn't fairly represent my views as an expert witness is not true."

The sworn certification of Scipione's declaration does not line up either horizontally or vertically with the type above it, according to a graphic artist who examined the document. In addition, the date shows that Scipione signed the document on Feb. 5, 1985, but the year is handwritten in. The cross-out, typed, version reads 1984.

WCI officials contend that the crooked type and the crossed-out year substantiate their claims that the Postal Service may have had several blank declaration certification forms that were signed by expert witnesses before the declarations were written.

Government officials maintain that Scipione "didn't sign blank pages," according to Postal Service attorney Nan Kalthoff. "Even if he had just signed blank pieces of paper, (the question here is) if that's his statement to which he meant to be bound."

Kalthoff described as "patently false and absurd" WCI's charges that Scipione "never saw the commercials, never wrote the statement, just sent in his signature and that he had no input into the declaration."

Kalthoff said she would "have problems if we wrote a statement and he didn't know what he was signing, but we've never done that. Generally, the way declarations go, we send lots of copies back and forth."

The brouhaha is the latest in a series of charges and countercharges raised during WCI's yearlong battle with the Postal Service over the Grapefruit 45 nationally televised commercials.

The controversial diet ads were judged misleading by the Postal Service, which seized about $4 million worth of checks and money orders from Grapefruit 45 customers in February, 1985.

Technically, authorities charged WCI with violating a 1984 consent agreement that prohibited WCI from making false claims about its diet pills.

Since then, WCI President Jay M. Kholos has made fighting postal officials something of a crusade, maintaining that he is a small-business victim of excessive government authority.

The issue of whether the Grapefruit 45 diet pills actually work or whether the televised ads were misleading seems to have become a secondary issue--at times for both sides.

"We're not surprised that Scipione's now trying to cover up some major errors of judgment he may have made," Kholos said in an interview.

Kholos and his battery of lawyers have tried--so far unsuccessfully--to take Scipione's deposition regarding the sworn declaration.

The controversy over Scipione's declaration is important because it was his expert opinion that led to the seizure of about $4 million worth of Grapefruit orders.

WCI officials contend, however, that his signature on the declaration may have been attached to the document before it was written, that he may not have read the final version of the declaration, and that the Postal Service may have sent Scipione blank pages to sign.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|