May 29, 2006 (1)
From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To:
dom@LasikSucks4U.com
CC:
ddurrie@durrievision.com,
docholladay@docholladay.com,
idaho@fiifa.com,
jphermanod@aol.com,
strongvision@urmc.rochester.edu,
randy@themagnumgroup.com,
jamestownsend@ardennet.com, "'dom morgan'" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject:RE: glenn hagele
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 03:15:41 -0700
{ }
Dom,
Thank you for your letter of concern. I greatly appreciate that you have voiced your opinions so I and all associated with our organization can give them proper consideration.
I concur that events of late are unfortunate. Obviously I do not consider being the target of attacks on my character, the character of my wife, the publication of my personal identity including Social Security number, having personal emails made public, threats of physical violence, etc., as productive to me personally, the purpose of our organization, or even to those who aim their ire at refractive surgeons, industry, or me. Indeed these are troubling distractions for all.
I believe something that will help the situation is my participation on unmoderated Internet forums is about to be dramatically reduced. I have been working on the preparation of our own moderated bulletin board and my participation will be concentrated there. I had originally planned for a June 1st launch, but it is ready now so I’ll make it live as soon as possible. I’m sure you would agree that concentrating on assisting patients’ concerns without rancor and politics will be much more productive.
It is time for a teleconference with our governing Board of Trustees, the election of new officers, and normal business, but I will be sure to have your concerns high on the agenda. I will let you know directly the results of those discussions. Out of respect to the situation, I will attempt to arrange this meeting as soon as possible, but some of our members are out of the country and otherwise engaged, so please be patient.
All litigation that relates to defamation against me is brought by me personally and independently. CRSQA is neither a party to those actions nor does CRSQA fund those actions, however as a gesture of good will and cooperation I promise that I will not advance any current litigation against any person you represent beyond what is already scheduled. I will not request any new criminal investigation against any person you represent. Additionally, no new litigation against any person you represent will be filed until the CRSQA governing board is able to review your concerns. That is a personal commitment that I hope will be accepted in the spirit it is offered. Please let me know who you represent so they will be included in this commitment, and I’m sure that our board would like to know the source of these concerns. Furthermore, there may be additional individuals you do not represent who should be contacted directly and asked to participate. I believe everyone’s involvement is important and valuable.
There is something more that you can do, if you wish. You raised your concerns very well, but you provided no indication what you personally, or those you represent, would consider appropriate changes and responses. If you are willing, please forward to me your suggestions and I will include them unedited in our meeting. Nothing extensive is required. A list would suffice, but you can provide as much detail as you like. We all see there is a problem and I’m sure I can speak on behalf of our entire
board when I say we are willing to consider all potential solutions.
Thank you again for taking this important step toward what I hope and am certain will be a constructive result. I will contact you as soon as possible.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
8543 Everglade Dr
Sacramento CA 95826-3616
Voice: 916/381-0769
Fax: 206/237-6545
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
Mr. Hagele is not a doctor.
May 29, 2006 (2)
From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To:
dom@LasikSucks4U.com, "'dom morgan'" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Recruit who you can
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 04:27:36 -0700
Dom,
I’m delighted you have started a process that will undoubtedly make this situation better. Actually, it already has. I am hopeful you will recruit to your group everyone who has an interest in the situation.
This would include:
Sandra Keller
Ariel Berschadsky
Brent Hanson
Lauranell Burch
***** *****
Dean Kantis
Elvira Galindo
Richard Zickefoose
Anyone else I missed
Ron Link and I have already negotiated an amicable settlement. There is no need to include any of the VSRN folks.
Those who participate in your efforts will be assured that no further action will be taken against them until our board meets, and each will directly benefit from any resolution that is found. Those who do not participate in your group will not receive such benefit. The only limitation is what is already in play, which includes only Brent Hanson and Sandy Keller. If Hanson and Keller are a part of your group, I will let go forward what is already submitted but will not promote any new action until our board meets. It seems highly unlikely that your group will be able to resolve the Hanson and Keller situations, but I’m open to consider anything as a possibility. I’m making the assumption that your group includes all those above and I have suspended all AdWords ads related to those listed as an additional sign of good faith.
Your timing is excellent. Litigation against Zickefoose for damages caused by the publication of my personal identity on his website was to be filed on Tuesday morning, defamation litigation against Cofer, Keller, and the credit union shortly thereafter, along with Berschadsky after that. If they are included in your group, that litigation will be held indefinitely.
I am expecting, but not requiring, that those who you represent will stop their attacks on me. A show of good faith on their part seems reasonable.
Our board meetings are normally held via teleconference and are usually rather short. Virtually all issues are communicated via email prior to the meeting so our time is spent on discussion of resolutions, not background. I want the members to have enough time to consider your concerns, so I will be sure that before the meeting your letter will be distributed to all current and incoming members. Your group’s proposed changes will be included too, if you provide them in a timely manner. We have several changes in board members coming up and I want to get a consensus with both the outgoing and the incoming members so there will be a continuity of any commitment made by CRSQA. Coordination is going to be a challenge.
We all look forward to you providing what you seek as a resolution.
The ball is in your court, Dom.
Glenn
May 29, 2006 (3)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: further correspondence
To:
ddurrie@durrievision.com
Dr. Durrie,
Much thanks for your kind note and offer of discussion. Since you and I last corresponded, I received a message from Mr. Hagele, which I've pasted in at the bottom of this email. The note contains a number of assumptions which I frankly do not understand. For example, the note states that, "Those who participate in your efforts will be assured that no further action will be taken against them until our board meets, and each will directly benefit from any resolution that is found. Those who do not participate in your group will not receive such benefit," and concludes by saying that " The ball is in your court, Dom."
Let me be clear: I have no group, and therefore no political agenda. I am legally blind and have no court and no ball. I do find it curious, however, that your email explicitly states that Mr. Hagele is acting on his own behalf, independent of CRSQA, while Mr. Hagele indicates, as quoted above, that action will be taken based on the proceedings of the board, of which you are a member.
Statements like these from Mr. Hagele are exactly why the casualty community believes that CRSQA speaks on behalf of the refractive surgery industry. I claim no deep understanding of the law, but I can say with certainty that these are the kinds of contradictions that lawyers find interesting. Specifically, Mr. Hagele's message begs the question: "How much does the board know about Mr. Hagele actions?" and "When did the board have knowledge of these actions?" and "What kind of correspondence, email or otherwise, might exist between Mr. Hagele and the members of the board that might be subject to subpoena? What else might be established based on those communications?"
As noted, I have no group, I represent no one, and I speak only for myself. However, I must agree with Mr. Hagele that a legal showdown between the refractive surgery industry and the casualty community is brewing, and like Mr. Hagele, I do not believe that it can be stopped. Nor is that showdown likely to be limited to CRSQA versus Hanson or CRSQA versus Keller, as Mr. Hagele might have you believe. Matters have progressed far beyond that, and are concerned with the general tenor of Mr. Hagele's attitude and communications, not only as a representive of CRSQA, but of the entire refractive surgery industry. Mr Hagele's heavy handedness and legal maneuverings (see the quote above) play directly into the darkest fears of damaged patients, fears that they have been manipulated by a greedy industry for whom politics is more important than healing. People want justice.
You and the other board members of CRSQA are also subject to this manipulation: The fact that Mr. Hagele indicates he has an organization behind him lays an inescapable liabilty directly on yourself and other members of the board.
In closing, let me say that I will not reply to Mr. Hagele. I choose not to respond to the manipulation implicit in his email. Moreover, I do not believe that a long-term resolution of the tensions between the casualty community and the refractive surgery industry is possible where Mr. Hagele is free to frame the issues and set the agenda for discussion. I don't know anyone who believes that Mr. Hagele really wants to help patients. Instead, I recognize that the power behind CRSQA ultimately lies with the doctors, and I believe that it is time that the doctors and patients come together to discuss our collective future.
No middleman is necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that much of the tension between the refractive surgery industry and the casualty community would evaporate if Mr. Hagele were dismissed from his position as Executive Director. That would certainly provide unassailable proof that Mr. Hagele's actions were conducted on his own, without the approval of the CRSQA board.
I look forward to our discussion. Evenings are definitely best for me. I will let you set the time and date.
Sincerely,
Dom Morgan
May 29, 2006 (4)
From: dom morgan [mailto:talkaboutfda@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:56 PM
To: Durrie, Daniel, MD
Subject: my apologies
Dr. Durrie,
I did not realize I made an error when sending this earlier, and I apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Dom Morgan
May 29, 2006 (5)
From: "Durrie, Daniel, MD" <ddurrie@durrievision.com>
To: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: my apologies
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:19:56 -0500
Dom, that is fine. Glenn has been doing all of this on his own without board approval. I have notified Glenn that I have resigned from the board. I just want to help patients. Keep in touch. - DSD
May 30, 2006
From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To:
talkaboutfda@yahoo.com
Subject: Who is in your group?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:41:01 -0700
Dom,
I need as soon as possible the list of which people are working with you toward a resolution to these problems. Elvira Galindo emailed a half a dozen of our doctors with all sorts of unfounded accusations. If she is working with you, then I’m very disappointed with her acts and lack of cooperative effort. If she is not, then I will move against her as appropriate.
Thanks in advance,
Glenn
May 30, 2006
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Resignation
To: "Durrie, Daniel, MD" <ddurrie@durrievision.com>
Dear Dr. Durrie,
Your resignation was not the intent of my correspondence, and you have my most sincere apologies.
I believe CRSQA had the correct approach towards patient advocacy, but it would have been best obtained without the deceit and misguided direction Glenn has provided.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!
Again, you have my apologies,
Dom
Jun 19, 2006 (1)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: continued posting
To:
glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org
{ }
Glenn,
All you know how to do is threaten.
I am collecting all these emails and posts, and I'm turning it all over to the FBI. I intend to ask them to open an investigation, and I intend to provide the names and phone numbers of the appropriate parties who need questioning.
The internet crosses state boundaries, and so do the threats. That makes it a federal matter. In order for the FBI to determine whether a crime has been committed, the patients concerned will have to cooperate, whether they want to or not. That means everyone on your hit list.
Whatever was between you and Brent should have stayed between you and Brent. But it didn't, and you threatened to publish information that promotes identity theft, even the identity theft of some patient's elderly mothers, who have nothing to do with anything of this. In my opinion, a crime has been committed. It's called blackmail. It's included in Category 9 of the FBI's National Incident Reporting System.
I'm turning you in, Glenn. You can laugh, you can cry, you can continue to threaten, you can sue, you can do whatever. But I am turning you in. Even if the FBI does nothing, I want it on record that your behavior was reported.
And I don't care what the other patients say or think. This has gone far enough. If they've done anything wrong they'll have to answer to charges from the FBI, too.
Dom
Jun 19, 2006 (2)
From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: continued posting
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:56:53 -0700
{ }
Please provide a single instance where I have stated I will commit an illegal act.
Jun 21, 2006 (1)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: continued posting
To:
glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org
{ }
Glenn,
You wrote previously about stating facts when writing anything, yet you post on your website and newsgroups YOUR perception of facts.
You publicly post that my websites are "full of misinformation" (your opinion), yet you do the same without dealing in facts.
If you want the facts to post regarding my situation, I would be happy to provide you with cd's for you to twist around, but bear in mind, all of the information will be republished once my appeal is finalized.
Your intent to publish ANYTHING to discredit me shows how sick and twisted you obviously are. Your ego and your continued efforts to deceive everyone, including your board of trustees, will put you on the unemployment line real quick. Wise up, Glenn! Is that what you really want?
Dom
Jun 21, 2006 (2)
From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: continued posting
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:49:23 -0700
I have every intent to publish facts about your situation. Substantiated facts. If you want to assist:
Please provide the court's documents regarding your malpractice litigation/arbitration including the final decision that you lost and there was no malpractice. That is a fact that you seem to have omitted from your websites. I have to admit, I would not mind losing litigation if I gain $100k anyway.
Please provide the initial filings and final decision of the judge when you were sued for breach of agreement by your doctor. I'll be sure that fact gets on my website too.
I already have the source code of your web pages with your doctor's name in the MetaTags. That fact will get there too, when the time is right. I will take care to present opinions about what appears to be continued breach of an agreement affirmed by a judge as opinions. I'll let the fact of what you are doing speak for itself.
It appears from your recent emails to me that you believe freedom of speech only applies when you want to speak of others, not when others speak of you. The same rules apply to everyone.
Do keep in mind that I almost never instigate a thread of any kind at alt.lasik-eyes, but I do respond to attacks. Litigation is filed only in response to an attack. No attacks, no responses. Things could get very
quiet very quickly and very easily, however that decision is really not in my hands. Perhaps you should direct your sanctimony to the instigators of the attacks...including yourself.
Jun 24, 2006
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:49:23 -0700
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Much to my regret, as I believed an amicable solution could have avoided this, I've updated my website
to include:
www.lasiksucks4u.com/hagele.htm
www.lasiksucks4u.com/hagemails.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Morgan wrote:
Quote:
The format of the emails above have been changed to provide easier reading. To view the originals, click here. Personal information (phone number) has been edited as well to ensure privacy.
NOTE: I spoke with Dr. Durrie regarding permission to post the correspondence I had with him, and although he does not advocate my posting (the correspondence), he assured me his intentions to provide help to those complicated from refractive surgery. He also stated there are many advances to current complications on the horizon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
