CHARAPP, DEESE & WEISS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 1001
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3303
TELEPHONE (202) 463-9100 FACSIMILE (202) 463-2091
August 20, 1998
Keith Conover, M.D.
36 Robin Hood Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15220-3014
Dear Dr. Conover:
I represent DielectroKinetic Laboratories, LLC. For some time, based upon the list of revisions you have at your website (www.pitt.edu/-kconover/), you have engaged in an internet campaign of defamation concerning DKL and its product, the LifeGuard(TM). You have made these statements with the intent to damage DKL and/or with reckless disregard of the truth with the effect of damaging DKL.
Examples of these statements that appear on your website are as follows:
1. "Just wanted everyone to know--the devices called "LifeGuards" that are offered by DielectroKinetic Labs are useless and a fraud. . . ."
2. "These devices, which sell on the $5000-$15000 range are nothing more than an expensive dowsing rod."
3. "There is no good solid theoretical basis for their claims about their devices nor do they work in controlled empirical testing."
These are only examples of the defamatory representations you have posted on your website. There are many others.
You have no knowledge or basis to make the claims you make. Other than a short demonstration, you have had no experience with the instrument. Based upon the representations of your website, you are not a physicist. You have no scientific background to judge the operation of the instrument or to make the claims you make. You claim to piece together the basis of your claim from your background as a physician supplemented by reference to the very flawed, incomplete, and biased operational test reported by Sandia.
In fact, the LifeGuardTm is a scientific device that works as advertised. DKL has done tests that it is willing to make available for responsible, knowledgeable analysis that show this. The testing proves that the LifeGuardTm is not a fraud, it works as advertised, it is not a dowsing rod, and it is based on solid, scientific principles. It is a patented (Patent # 5,748,088) electronic instrument that requires training to operate.
Recently, Mr. James Bryant sent you several e-mails. Mr. Bryant wanted to give you the opportunity to become familiar with the LifeGuardTm and its scientific and technological underpinnings. Other than a short e-mail indicating that you have received the e-mails, you have chosen to ignore those. Mr. Bryant contacted you with the hope of showing you the error of your ways. Apparently, you wish to maintain your position of groundless defamation of DKL.
You have acted with the intent of stopping LifeGuard(TM) sales, as you make clear on your website. This is to let you know that DKL will not stand by and allow you to spew your unsupported and uninformed charges on the Internet. It is prepared to take legal action against you unless you do the following:
1. Retract the false charges against DKL posted on your website,
2. Post a statement on your website that you do not have the scientific background appropriate to make judgments concerning the LifeGuardTm and its efficacy,
3. Post a statement on your website that you withdraw all previous conclusions you posted about DKL and the LifeGuardTm and stating that your conclusions were based on incomplete information and lack of knowledge of the science and technology underlying the LifeGuardTm,
4. Issue an apology to DKL posted on your website for the unsupported, unscientific, unknowing, reckless and/or intentionally defamatory statements you posted,
5. E-mail a copy of your apology to all persons to whom you have sent e-mails containing defamatory statements about LifeGuardTM, and
6. Post a link to DKL's webpage so that interested individuals can make a reasoned decision concerning the LifeGuardTm. Unless all of the actions I have outlined are taken within ten days, DKL will have no choice but to institute legal action against you.
Michael G. Charapp