1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs.

LOUIS DANIEL SMITH, also known

6 as Daniel Smith, also known as
Daniel Votino,
7
8
9

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.
2:13-CR-00014-RMP-1
May 26, 2015
Spokane, Washington
Jury Trial - Day 6
Pages 1 - 103

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10 APPEARANCES:
11

For the Plaintiff:

Mr. Christopher E. Parisi

Mr. Timothy Finley
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Liberty Square Bldg, Room 6400
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20530

For the Defendant:

Mr. Matthew A. Campbell

Federal Defenders of Eastern
Washington and Idaho
10 North Post
Suite 700
Spokane, Washington 99201

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Official Court Reporter:
21
22

Ronelle F. Corbey, RPR, CRR, CCR

United States District Courthouse
P.O. Box 700
Spokane, Washington 99210
(509) 458-5283

23
24

Proceedings reported by mechanical stenography; transcript

25 produced by computer-aided transcription.

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 consider Question 1 below.
2 answer Question 1:

33

If you find him "Guilty," then you

We, the Jury, having found the defendant,

3 Louis Daniel Smith, guilty of Count 5, unanimously find beyond a

4 reasonable doubt that the defendant, Louis Daniel Smith, acted
5 (check the appropriate box):

Without intent to defraud or

6 mislead or with intent to defraud or mislead.

7

Count 6: We, the Jury, unanimously find beyond a

8 reasonable doubt that the defendant, Louis Daniel Smith, "Not

9 Guilty" or "Guilty" (circle one) of the offense of fraudulently
10 importing merchandise (Sodium Chlorite) into the United States,
11 as charged in Count 6.
12

Then there's a place for the presiding juror to sign the

13 verdict form.
14

Mr. Parisi, it's ten to 10:00. Would you like to make your

15 closing argument?
16

MR. PARISI: Yes, your Honor.

17

THE COURT: All right. And can you just show

18 Mr. Campbell what exhibit you're displaying there?

19

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Okay.

21

MR. PARISI: May I proceed, your Honor?

22

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

23

MR. PARISI: Arrogance. That's the word that best

24 describes this case.

25 arrogance.

This is a case about the defendant's

He lied to get what he wanted, he thought he was

34

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

1 above the law, and he thought he got to decide what was safe for
2 everyone else.

This case is about his lies, his arrogance, and

3 his fraud.
4

It's also about the defendant's obsession with making money

5 by selling a dangerous chemical as a cure for disease.

6

So what is the Miracle Mineral Supplement? According to

7 Jim Humble's book, it's the most powerful killer of disease that
8 has ever been known.
9 word for it.

But you don't have to take Jim Humble's

Take Larry Smith's. He's the defendant's father.

10 Larry Smith wrote the "MMS for Newbies" pamphlet.

He said MMS

11 would have a beneficial impact on diseases like HIV/AIDS,

12 hepatitis, typhoid, cancers, herpes, pneumonia, tuberculosis,
13 arthritis, asthma, seasonal flu, even bird and swine flu.
14

You can drink MMS. You can rub it on your skin. You can

15 use it in an enema.
16

Who can use it? Practically anybody. The very ill, the

17 elderly, the young, even pregnant women and babies if it's an

18 emergency.
19

There are some side effects, and the defendant's father

20 tells us about those.

On Page 12 of his Newbies pamphlet, if

21 you notice diarrhea or even vomiting, that is not a bad sign.

22 The body is simply throwing off poisons and cleaning itself out.
23 Everyone says that they feel much better after the diarrhea.
24 You do not have to take any medicine for the diarrhea.
25 go away as fast as it came.

It will

It will not last. It is not real

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

35

1 diarrhea as the body is just cleaning out, and it is not caused

2 by bacteria or virus.
3 gone.
4

When the poison is gone, the diarrhea is

Members of the jury, that's what MMS is. It's poison.

So how did the defendant run his MMS business? Well, he

5 included only his closest friends and family, the people he

6 trusted the most.

His wife, Karis Delong; his brother-in-law,

7 Matthew Darjany; his father, Larry Smith.

His dad was one of

8 the key members of Project Greenlife.

9

And you heard about all of his other close friends,

10 Chris Olson and the others.

And what did the defendant's good

11 friend, Chris Olson, say about Project Greenlife and the

12 defendant and this MMS business?
13 said, quote, He was the man.

You'll remember Chris Olson

And, quote, he was PGL.

14 Chris Olson also told you, quote, MMS was PGL.

15

And, for a while, the MMS business was good; and you saw

16 the emails between the defendant and other people where he

17 talked about grossing $120,000 a month.

And he emails between

18 him and his father where they discussed and planned become the
19 Six Million Dollar Men.

But the problem with the booming MMS

20 business is that certain people start to notice, they become

21 concerned, and they start to ask questions.
22

So what did the defendant do when people asked him

23 questions about Project Greenlife?

24 publish?
25

THE COURT: Yes.

Your Honor, if we may

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

36

MR. PARISI: We're going to look at Government's 217.

2 Government's 217 is the email sent to the defendant when he

3 registered pglwater.com back in 2008.
4

So what did the defendant do when people asked him

5 questions about his business?

It's very simple. He lied. This

6 is the lie that the defendant sent to Norman Dodson when

7 Norman Dodson started asking questions.

It's the same lie

8 that's on the bottle of every -- every bottle of MMS the

9 defendant shipped.

"Water purification." That's the lie the

10 defendant told to fool the FDA.

11

But his lies didn't fool everyone. Let's look at

12 Government's 268.

This is a letter that was sent by a man named

13 Robert Bower at OxyChem very early in 2008.

He sent this letter

14 to Brenntag and the defendant's friend, Jeff Jacobson, sent it

15 to him.

And Mr. Bower made it very clear that MMS was dangerous

16 and that it violated federal law.

And, even though the

17 defendant was told that he was violating federal law, he did not
18 stop.
19

The defendant didn't fool Norman Dodson, the very first

20 witness you heard from in this trial.

21 Mr. Dodson sent in December of 2008.

This is the letter

Again, he told the

22 defendant that his product was dangerous and that the defendant
23 was violating federal law by selling it.

And, despite this

24 crystal clear warning, the defendant still did not stop.

25

Later, Jim Humble forwarded an email to the defendant and

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

37

1 that email contained something called an FDA warning letter.

2 The beginning of 2009 the defendant got that warning letter.
3 That warning letter concerned another MMS distributor, and that
4 warning letter made it very clear that selling MMS with Jim
5 Humble's claims and protocols violated the law.

Again, despite

6 receiving a clear warning that his actions violated the law, the
7 defendant still did not stop.
8

The Italian government wasn't fooled by the defendant. You

9 saw the email sent to the defendant where one of his customers
10 complained that the Italian government had seized the
11 defendant's MMS.

And you saw other emails between the defendant

12 and some of his coconspirators, like, Tammy Olson, where they

13 described the Canadian government having similar concerns.
14 Despite receiving word that other governments had a problem with
15 his product, the defendant still did not stop.
16

We fast forward to July of 2010. The FDA puts out its

17 first news release, and the FDA told the world about very
18 potential -- very serious potential harm caused by the
19 defendant's product.

The FDA told the world it was dangerous,

20 and the FDA made it clear that it would pursue criminal

21 enforcement against those people who sold MMS.

And, even though

22 the defendant saw this and he sent it to his friends and his
23 coconspirators, he still did not stop.
24

You heard testimony from Elizabeth Miller. She was the FDA

25 employee who took the stand, and she told you about a series of

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

38

1 phone conversations she had with one of the defendant's lawyers,

2 a woman named Nancy Lord.
3 2010.

Those calls took place in August of

And Ms. Miller told you that she made it very clear to

4 Nancy Lord that the defendant himself was violating the law,
5 that what he was doing was illegal; and you saw the emails where
6 the defendant told all of his coconspirators that he got that
7 message.

Fifteen agents were on the phone. They were accusing

8 him of selling an unapproved new drug.

He got the message, and

9 yet he still did not stop.

10

In October of 2010, the FDA put out another news release,

11 again, telling people that the defendant's product was

12 dangerous.

And, again, the FDA said that they would take

13 enforcement action against people like the defendant who didn't

14 stop selling MMS.
15

And, even though, again, he got the message, he still did

16 not stop.
17

How many times did they have to tell him that what he was

18 doing was dangerous, and how many times did they have to tell
19 him that what he was doing was illegal?
20

They told the defendant seven times that what he was doing

21 was dangerous and legal -- and illegal.

Did he stop? No, he

22 didn't.
23

And, even when the FDA knocked on his door -- remember FDA

24 employee Jessica Clark?

She literally knocked on the

25 defendant's front door.

He still didn't stop.

39

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1

Remember Ms. Clark's testimony when she went to

2 Chris Olson's place at Longfellow Road to try to find MMS, to

3 try to talk to the defendant?

What happened? The defendant's

4 brother-in-law told her to take a hike, told he she wasn't

5 welcome to search, and that she wasn't welcome there.
6 did.

She left. She took a hike, but not before she left her

7 business card.
8

And she

That's Government's 49.

Now, the defendant may not have been at Longfellow that

9 day; but he got message.

He knew the FDA was looking for him.

10 And you'll remember, during cross examination, Mr. Campbell

11 asked Jessica Clark if she was certain that this was the
12 business card she left that day; and she hesitated.

She wasn't

13 certain because her business cards all look the same.

So she

14 couldn't be certain this was the very same business card.

15

But we can be certain because we know this business card

16 was found in the defendant's house.

Do you remember when

17 Special Agent Borden testified about the search warrants at the

18 defendant's house, and she told you where this business card was
19 located.

It was in a folder with two other pieces of paper. Do

20 you remember what they were?

One of them was the Notice of

21 Inspection from Mailstream, a private document that the

22 defendant would not have received; but he got his hands on it.
23 Again, he got the message the FDA was looking for him; and yet
24 he still didn't stop.
25

But it's that second piece of paper that was in the folder

40

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 with Jessica Clark's business card.
2 all.

That's the most damning of

That was a printout of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

3 the very same statute, misbranded drugs, that the defendant is

4 charged with today.

He knew the FDA was looking for him, and he

5 knew why they were looking for him; and yet he still didn't
6 stop.
7

Did Jessica Clark and Barbara Breithaupt and all the other

8 FDA employees -- did they deter the defendant in any way?

9 didn't.
10

They

All he did was draw his circle of trust closer.

Mailstream was out so he needed someone new to ship. His

11 brother-in-law, Matthew Darjany, became the new Mailstream.

12

But who to manufacture? Who was going to replace American

13 Nutraceuticals?

Where could he trust that he could build his

14 drug, manufacture his drug?

15

Who could he trust?

What location did the defendant choose? He chose Chris

16 Olson's facility on Longfellow Road.

17

You're looking at the bottling room. This is where Chris

18 Olson manufactured the defendant's drug for him.

19 location the defendant chose.

This is the

It's in this disgusting, filthy

20 room where the miracle cancer cure was bottled.

It was bottled

21 by hand by Chris Olson who told you that he used a metal pipe or
22 piece of wood that he found in the shop to mix it.
23

The defendant never registered this facility, and you can

24 look at the photograph and tell that.

There's no chance he

25 could have registered this facility.

And is it any surprise

41

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 that David Jackson, the FDA expert, found that the levels of
2 Sodium Chlorite in the defendant's product were so much higher
3 than what the label said?

Were there any controls in this

4 facility?
5

This photograph is why drug manufacturers need to be

6 registered.
7

So let's look at the Sodium Chlorite tank that Chris Olson

8 had at his place.

This is the giant tank of liquid Sodium

9 Chlorite that Chris Olson used to manufacture the defendant's

10 drug for him.

How did that tank get to Chris Olson? Well,

11 you'll recall he said it came on a truck; but it was the

12 defendant's lies that paved the way.

PGL Wastewater Systems,

13 the biggest lie the defendant ever told.

That's a company that

14 never existed, that had no employees, and did no wastewater

15 work.
16

That's a lie the defendant created when Norman Dodson

17 started asking questions when OxyChem and Brenntag shut down his
18 Sodium Chlorite shipments.

And, unfortunately, that lie served

19 its purpose because our country is defended in large part by a

20 system that requires trust.

Kathy Raymond told you that it's

21 impossible to look at every single package that comes over our

22 borders.

It's impossible to do a full investigation. And the

23 only way the system functions is if there is trust.

Trust that

24 the people bringing chemicals and other products into our

25 country tell the truth.

We have to trust that they will fill

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 out the paperwork appropriately and correctly.

42

Otherwise, the

2 system simply doesn't work.

3

And Kathy Raymond told you that the tariff codes on the

4 shipments of the defendant's product didn't give her enough

5 information.

She had to do more investigation. She had to look

6 and determine what the end use was to decide whether this was an
7 FDA product, whether it needed to be flagged, and whether it
8 could be diverted and inspected by the FDA.

Kathy Raymond had

9 to trust the defendant.

10

Unfortunately, the defendant lied again and again and

11 again.

He used his biggest lie. PGL Wastewater Systems. So

12 let's look at the paperwork he used to bring that Sodium

13 Chlorite tank into the country.
14 the destination of that tank.

Government's 108. You can see

It's Chris Olson's place, Belair

15 Composites on Longfellow Road; and right there, front and

16 center, is the defendant's name.

This was his product. He

17 brought it into the country.

18

Let's look at some other pieces of paper to see if there's

19 any hints as to what this product was supposed to be used for.

20 What would Kathy Raymond see when she conducted her
21 investigation?
22 Another lie.

Right there (indicating) "odor control."

This product was never used for odor control. It

23 went into MMS, the miracle cancer cure.

24

And, if Kathy Raymond were to dig deeper and look for more

25 hints and see if the paperwork supported that, the very last

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

43

1 page says, "This product is intended for use in a chlorine

2 dioxide generator."
3

Even if Kathy Raymond did all of her homework, Googled

4 everything, asked around, and did all of the research, all of

5 the defendant's lies fit together.

They ensured that product

6 would get over the border, get here in Spokane where he could
7 make his drug.
8

You'll remember Chris Olson had no idea what a chlorine

9 dioxide generator was, and he certainly didn't own one yet this
10 product was supposed to be going to him for use in something
11 he'd never heard of.
12

Norman Dodson had heard of a chlorine dioxide generator.

13 He told you that was a large, sophisticated piece of machinery

14 used in wastewater treatment; something the defendant didn't do.
15 It's another lie.
16

And it's the defendant's lies that bring us here today. He

17 sits here charged with a number of different crimes as the judge

18 just told you, and I want to talk about each of those in turn.
19

First, let's talk about smuggling. And you'll see on your

20 screen, and as the judge just instructed you, there's a number

21 of elements.

That giant tote tank of Sodium Chlorite at Chris

22 Olson's facility.
23 merchandise.

That's merchandise, and it's the defendant's

His name was on the shipment, and it was his

24 company that bought it.

25

And he brought it here contrary to law. It was brought

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

44

1 here contrary to law because it was intended for use as an

2 ingredient in a misbranded drug, one that had no approval from
3 the FDA.

And, as we just looked at, the defendant lied time and

4 time again to get that product over the border.

5

Now, during cross examination in the defense case,

6 Mr. Campbell made it clear that the paperwork was filled out by
7 someone named Stan Nowak; and that may be true.

But, remember,

8 it was the defendant and Joe Lachnit who called Stan Nowak to
9 get more Sodium Chlorite when they were shut off by U.S.
10 chemical supplier.

And the defendant knew that Stan Nowak was

11 an MMS seller just like him.

12

As the judge just instructed you, the defendant is

13 responsible for the acts of his coconspirators.

In essence,

14 when you're in crime together, you're on the hook together.

15 That makes sense.

So, when you look at this paperwork, the lies

16 that were told on the paperwork to bring the defendant's Sodium

17 Chlorite into the country, remember that.

Even though Stan

18 Nowak may have filled it out, he did it at the defendant's

19 request; and he used the defendant's lies.

The defendant is

20 just as guilty as Stan Nowak is.

21

The next crime the defendant is charged with is called

22 Misbranding or Misbranded Drugs; and, again, there's a number of

23 elements.
24

Counts 2 through 4, as you'll see on your verdict slip,

25 those relate to the controlled buys the Special Agents testified

45

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 about.

The first one was Mike Baxter. You'll remember his

2 testimony.

And the last two were conducted by Lisa Hartsell,

3 another Special Agent.

4

Count 5? That refers to the package of 30 bottles that

5 Inspector France Bega used at the post office here in Spokane.

6

The first three controlled buys -- they went in interstate

7 commerce, and you know that because the postmarks show it; that
8 they started here in Spokane, and they were received in
9 California.

And you also heard testimony from Allan McEachern

10 of Mailstream and Matthew Darjany that they shipped products all

11 over the United States for the defendant.

That's interstate

12 commerce.
13

And Count 5, that box that Inspector Bega seized from the

14 post office here in Spokane?

It never had a chance to cross

15 state lines, but that doesn't matter because the defendant or

16 one of his conspirators put that at the post office with an
17 address in Montana.

They intended for it to go in interstate

18 commerce, and they don't get a pass just because the postal
19 inspector seized it before it went on its way.
20

Next, you have to decide whether MMS was a drug; and you're

21 not bound by the sticky label right on the bottle.

If you were,

22 it would be very easy for people like the defendants to get away
23 from the -- with their crimes.
24 look at the entire picture.

As the judge just told you, you

You look at what's on the bottle,

25 you look at what's shipped with the package, you look at what

46

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 the -- you look at what the defendant said about his product.

2 You get to consider all of his emails and all of the things all
3 of his coconspirators said.
4

And, when you look at that, when you look at the Newbies

5 pamphlet that his dad wrote and that he included in every single
6 shipment, that tells you what the defendant intended.
7 wasn't water purification.

These books and pamphlets don't say

8 anything about water purification.

9 disease.
10

This

They talk about curing

That's what makes MMS a drug.

Don't get tripped up about the difference between a

11 component and a drug.

As you'll remember from Government's 12,

12 the defendant's rebuttal letter that went with some of the

13 shipments, he talked about hoping that you or a judge or other
14 people would get tripped up and think, well, is Sodium Chlorite
15 a component, is it a drug, what is that?
16 built on trust.

Again, our system is

We have to trust drug manufacturers to use safe

17 ingredients in their product, and it's impossible to test

18 everything that goes out the door.

But, to ensure that we can

19 trust people who make drugs and that we can trust the safety of
20 the end ingredients, the law views components and ingredients
21 the same as the final product.

So it doesn't matter whether

22 Sodium Chlorite is simply an ingredient in a drug or whether it

23 is the drug itself.
24 drug.
25

Under the law, you look at it as if it's a

That makes sense. So don't get tripped up on that issue.

We know that the defendant's MMS was misbranded. It was

47

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 misbranded because it was manufactured in facilities that
2 weren't registered.

His first manufacturer was American

3 Nutraceuticals, and Elizabeth Miller was asked whether that

4 facility was ever registered; and she told you, no, it was not.
5 And we've looked at the pictures of Chris Olson's place.
6 told you it wasn't registered.

He

And, even if he didn't tell you

7 that, you can tell just from looking at the photograph.

8

Finally, you have to decide whether the defendant acted

9 with the intent to defraud.

The best way to decide that is to

10 look at his own words, his emails.

And let's look at a series

11 of emails between the defendant and Jeff Jacobson back in

12 February of 2009.

The defendant needs Sodium Chlorite rather

13 badly, and he's asking Jeff Jacobson how to do that without any
14 hassles.

He wants this to be off the record. What does Jeff

15 Jacobson say in response?

He encourages the defendant to create

16 a new company to bypass OxyChem and Brenntag's system locks, and

17 he encourages to put it in someone else's name.
18

So what does the defendant do? He asks for some

19 clarification.

He wants to know what he needs to satisfy

20 OxyChem and Brenntag's requirements for a, quote, new company.

21 Mr. Jacobson tells him:
22 contact, and an address.
23 instructions?
24

All we need is the name of a company, a

Did the defendant follow those

Did he create the new company? We know he did.

Shortly after that email, he says he'll go to work. He

25 tells the defendant Wastewater Systems will be placing an order

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1 shortly, and he provides a website.
2 have up by then.
3

48

A website that he should

A company and a website that didn't exist.

If we look forward to see what the defendant did next, he

4 had to create that website, start to create that fake company.

5 So he bought the domain name wastewatersys.com.

He sent that

6 email confirmation to his coconspirator, Joe Lachnit, because

7 Joe Lachnit was going to be the contact for the fake company.
8 He was going to place the order.
9

Next, the defendant went a step farther to ensure his lie

10 would last.
11 address.

He created a fake website. He created a fake email

He had to make sure all of his lies fit together so

12 that they wouldn't get caught.

He created Joe Lachnit a fake

13 email address, and he sent it to him to help him place the

14 Sodium Chlorite order.
15

Finally, you saw a series of emails between Joe Lachnit and

16 Jeff Jacobson where Joe Lachnit used that fake email and that
17 fake website and fake company in an attempt to buy more Sodium
18 Chlorite.
19

Members of the jury, in the course of two days between

20 February 23rd and February 25th, 2009, the defendant created an

21 entirely fake company, a fake website, and a fake email address
22 to support that.

And he did that to buy Sodium Chlorite. There

23 is no clearer evidence that you will ever see that the defendant
24 acted with intent to defraud than his emails and website
25 registrations that we just looked at.

49

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1

And there is no legitimate or legal explanation for this.

2 The only explanation for what the defendant did in February of

3 2009 is that he had the intent to defraud.

He intended to

4 deceive OxyChem, he intended to deceive the FDA, and later he

5 intended to deceive the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

This is

6 why the defendant is guilty of Misbranding.

7

Finally, the defendant is charged with conspiracy. That

8 requires an agreement between two or more people.

9 basically a partnership in crime.

It's

There are any number of

10 people the defendant conspired with throughout this scheme.

His

11 dad, his wife, Chris Olson, Joe Lachnit, Tammy Olson, Jim
12 Humble, and many others.

He agreed with all of them. Some he

13 agreed to manufacture with.

14 from the FDA.

Some helped him hide his activities

Some helped him get the word out about what this

15 product was really for by writing books and promoting it.

And

16 you saw the emails where the defendant communicated with each of
17 those people.
18

You saw his agreements.

As far as defrauding the FDA and obstructing their lawful

19 functions, you heard from Matt Darjany.

He yelled at Jessica

20 Clark, told her to leave the property, to stop looking around.

21 You heard testimony from Chris Olson about hiding product that
22 had been stored at Mailstream at his facility, hiding it from
23 the FDA.

Jessica Clark told you about her efforts and how they

24 were frustrated by the defendant and his coconspirators.

25 you heard from France Bega, the postal inspector.

And

During the

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

50

1 search warrant at the defendant's house, he had the defendant's

2 wife's iPhone in his hand; and the defendant wiped it clean.
3 There was no way to recover any evidence from that.
4

Those are just several of the examples of obstruction that

5 you've seen in this case.

And the crimes the defendant agreed

6 with his coconspirators to commit are the crimes we just talked

7 about, Misbranding and Smuggling.
8

To find the defendant guilty, you have to find he or one of

9 his coconspirators committed an overt act; and the judge just

10 read you a list of all of them.

There were eight, and I'll just

11 hit them briefly.

12

The first we've just seen. That was Government's 217.

13 That was the registration of pglwater.com.

14

There was a wire transfer to American Nutraceuticals.

15 That's Government 168, and that one may have slipped past you
16 during the trial.

You'll remember Dulce Marroqui, the employee

17 from Bank of America who testified briefly?

18 wire transfers.

Government's 168 was the transfer of almost

19 $5,000 to American Nutraceuticals.

20 that.
21

She introduced two

You'll be able to look at

It's in evidence.

We just looked at the defendant's registration of

22 wastewatersys.com.

That's another overt act. That's Government

23 81.
24

On March 3rd of 2009, the defendant and Joe Lachnit ordered

25 Sodium Chlorite from Stan Nowak.

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI
1

Government 169 is another wire transfer that Ms. Marroqui

2 introduced.
3

51

That's the payment.

Government 86 is the series of emails you'll recall between

4 the defendant, Joe Lachnit, and Stan Nowak where they placed
5 that order.
6

And the remaining overt acts? Those are the controlled

7 buys and the 79 packages that the defendant or one of his

8 coconspirators left at the post office here in Spokane.
9

We've proven every single overt act clearly and

10 definitively; but, remember, you only have to agree on one to

11 find the defendant guilty.
12

So what does a conspiracy look like? How do you know it

13 when you see it?

14

Well, it looks an awful lot like the phone list in front of

15 my podium.

You can see on there everybody who was anybody

16 involved in selling MMS, the illegal misbranded drug.

17

PGL International right at the top. That's the real

18 conspiracy.

And the first name listed on the left-hand side is

19 Jim Humble, and first name listed on the right-hand side is the
20 defendant.

And you'll see many of the other coconspirators that

21 you heard about throughout this trial listed on there with their
22 phone numbers.
23

That's what a conspiracy looks like.

A conspiracy also looks like Government 214, the emails

24 between the defendant and his father way back in the beginning,
25 October of 2007, the very beginning of this entire conspiracy.

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

52

1 The defendant and his father discussed the way they're going to
2 get rich.

They're going to become the Six Million Dollar Men.

3 They're going to commit the crime of Misbranded drugs, and they

4 have an agreement.
5 obstruct the FDA.

They also agree that they're going to

Even back in 2007, the defendant knew that

6 the FDA was going to be an issue.

7

So what does the defendant do? How do they agree to

8 obstruct the FDA:

9 product.

Dad, you write the book. I'll make the

That way the goons with machine guns can't stop us.

10

That's what conspiracy looks like.

11

So what does a conspiracy sound like? Well, it sounds an

12 awful lot like the phone call between the defendant and Joe
13 Lachnit and Stan Nowak.

We don't have a recording of that

14 phone, and we'll never be able to say exactly what was said.
15 But we've seen emails and we've heard testimony and we have a
16 pretty good idea.
17 phone call.

Just imagine you were listening in on that

What would you hear? You'd hear the defendant

18 asking Stan Nowak for Sodium Chlorite because he'd just been cut
19 off by Brenntag and OxyChem.

Remember, that all happened right

20 before they called Stan Nowak.

That's the reason they called

21 him.
22

Maybe you'd hear Stan Nowak express some sympathy. He was

23 an MMS distributor just like the defendant so he'd understand

24 the difficulties the defendant faced.
25

You'd hear those three talk about the best way to get

53

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

1 Sodium Chlorite into our country, about how to do it, how to get
2 it past Customs, how to get it past the FDA, and that's where
3 the defendant's big lie would come in, PGL Wastewater Systems.
4 You saw all the emails.

You saw the customs forms. That name's

5 all over them.

6

That's not a company name that Stan Nowak would have known.

7 The company didn't exist after all.

There's no way Stan Nowak

8 knows about PGL Wastewater Systems unless somebody tells him.

9 So who told Stan Nowak PGL Wastewater Systems?

Who told Stan

10 Nowak to put that information on the customs forms?

I'll bet

11 it's the guy sitting behind me who lies to get what he wants.
12

That's what a conspiracy sounds like. If we take a step

13 back away from the details of the law and the evidence that
14 we've seen over the past week or so, you'll remember the emails
15 -- and we've seen a few of them just now -- where the defendant
16 described the hassles and hang ups of getting Sodium Chlorite,
17 hurdles to jump over his coconspirators talked about, getting
18 product into other countries.
19

Members of the jury, this defendant views a law that's

20 designed to protect our health and safety as a "hang up" and a

21 "hassle."
22

It's the defendant's arrogance that propelled him forward,

23 and it's his lies that helped him run his business.

He knew

24 what he was doing was wrong, and you know that because guilty
25 minds do guilty things.

Guilty minds don't pay taxes on

54

JURY TRIAL - DAY 6 - MAY 26, 2015

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARISI

1 hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal income because they

2 can't.

And guilty minds do things like take a vocation, as

3 Chris Olson called it, to the jungles of Ecuador right after

4 search warrants are executed here in Spokane.
5

The defendant tried to avoid arrest. He tried to avoid

6 this very day, but it didn't work because Agent Borden caught
7 him.

She wasn't fooled by him. He didn't fool her with his

8 lies.

Don't let him fool you. Find him guilty of all the

9 crimes he's charged with.

10

Thank you.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I think it would be

11 appropriate to take the mid-morning break at this time.

12 resume in about 15 minutes.
13
14

All rise for the jury.

(Jury out at 10:25 a.m.)

THE COURT: Court is in recess.

15

(Court recessed at 10:25 a.m.)

16

(Court reconvened at 10:40 a.m.)

17

We will

THE COURT: Please be seated. Any issues before we

18 bring in the jury?

19

MR. PARISI: No, your Honor.

20

MR. CAMPBELL: I don't believe so.

21

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Curtis.

22
23

(Jury in at 10:40 a.m.)

THE COURT: All rise for the jury. Please be seated,

24 and now we will hear closing argument by the defense.

25 Mr. Campbell.