UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 10-1362 (EGS) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

DANIEL CHAPTER ONE, ) 

 ) 

 and ) 

 ) 

JAMES FEIJO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff United States brings this action against Daniel 

Chapter One and James Feijo (“Defendants”) under Sections 5(l), 

13(b), and 16(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 45(l), 53(b), and 56(a), alleging that Defendants have 

violated a final cease and desist order of the Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC” or the “Commission”). Pending before the 

Court is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Liability. The United States requests that the Court find that 

Defendants have violated the FTC’s order and accordingly are 

liable for civil penalties, injunctive relief, and consumer 

redress. Upon consideration of the motion, the opposition and 

reply thereto, the relevant case law, and the entire record in 
2 

this case, the Court will GRANT the United States’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Liability. 

I. BACKGROUND1

 

Defendant Daniel Chapter One is incorporated under the laws 

of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business 

in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 1. Defendant 

James Feijo is the sole member and overseer of Daniel Chapter 

One. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 2. Defendants advertise and sell dietary 

supplements, including BioShark, 7 Herb Formula, GDU, and 

BioMixx (the “Products”), which Defendants claim can treat, 

cure, or prevent cancer. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 3-4. 

A. Procedural Background 

On September 18, 2008, the FTC initiated an administrative 

proceeding alleging that Defendants’ marketing of the Products 

constituted deceptive acts and practices in violation of 

Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the 

“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 4-5. 

Following a trial, an administrative law judge concluded that 

Defendants had violated the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated 

claims that the Products prevented, treated, or cured tumors or 

cancer. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 6. Defendants appealed this decision to 

 1

 The facts are substantially derived from Plaintiff’s 

Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute (hereinafter, 

“Pl.’s SMF”); these facts are undisputed, unless otherwise 

indicated. 
3 

the Commission, and on December 24, 2009, the Commission upheld 

the decision and issued a Final Order to cease and desist 

certain practices. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 7-8. 

On January 25, 2010, the FTC issued a Modified Final Order, 

copies of which were served on Defendants and their attorneys on 

January 29, January 30, and February 1, 2010. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 9-

10; see also Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. on 

Liability (hereinafter, “Pl.’s MSJ”), Exs. D and V. Part II of 

the Modified Final Order prohibits Defendants (referred to in 

the Modified Final Order as “Respondents”) from making “any 

representation, in any manner, expressly or by implication, 

including through the use of product or program names or 

endorsements”2 that any product marketed by Defendants: 

[P]revents, treats, or cures or assists in the prevention, 

treatment, or cure of any type of tumor or cancer, 

including but not limited to representations that: 

1. BioShark inhibits tumor growth; 

2. BioShark is effective in the treatment of cancer; 

3. 7 Herb Formula is effective in the treatment or 

 cure of cancer; 

4. 7 Herb Formula inhibits tumor formation; 

5. GDU eliminates tumors; 

6. GDU is effective in the treatment of cancer; 

7. BioMixx is effective in the treatment of cancer; or 

8. BioMixx heals the destructive effects of radiation 

 2

 The Modified Final Order states that the term 

“endorsement” shall be defined as in 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b), which 

states that “an endorsement means any advertising message . . . 

that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, 

beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the 

sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party 

are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 255.0(b). 
4 

 or chemotherapy; 

unless the representation is true, non-misleading, and, at 

the time it is made, Respondents possess and rely upon 

competent and reliable scientific evidence that 

substantiates the representation. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 11; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. D, at 2. In addition, 

Part V.B of the Modified Final Order requires that: 

Within forty-five (45) days after the final and effective 

date of this order, Respondents shall send by first class 

mail, postage prepaid, an exact copy of the notice . . . to 

all persons [who purchased the Products between January 1, 

2005 and the date of the order.] 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 12; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. D, at 3. The notice, 

which is attached to the Modified Final Order, informs consumers 

of the FTC’s conclusion that Defendants’ advertising claims were 

deceptive because they were not substantiated by competent and 

reliable scientific evidence. See Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. D, at 7. 

Defendants filed an appeal with the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, contesting the 

legality and constitutionality of the Modified Final Order. See 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 13; Petition for Review, Daniel Chapter One v. FTC, 

No. 10-1064 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 17, 2010). Defendants also applied 

to the FTC for a stay of the Modified Final Order pending the 

outcome of their appeal, but their request was denied. Pl.’s 

SMF ¶ 14. Defendants then filed with the D.C. Circuit an 

emergency motion for a stay of the Modified Final Order. This 

motion was denied on April 1, 2010. See Per Curiam Order 

Denying Emergency Motion to Stay Case, Daniel Chapter One, No. 
5 

10-1064 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 2010); see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. F. 

Because Defendants failed to obtain a stay, the Modified Final 

Order became effective on April 2, 2010. See Pl.’s MSJ at 4; 

see also 15 U.S.C. § 45(g)(2) (“An order of the Commission to 

cease and desist shall become final . . . upon the sixtieth day 

after such order is served, if a petition for review has been 

duly filed; except that any such order may be stayed, in whole 

or in part and subject to such conditions as may be appropriate, 

by -- (A) the Commission; (B) an appropriate court of appeals of 

the United States . . . ; or (C) the Supreme Court, if an 

applicable petition for certiorari is pending.”). 

On August 13, 2010, the United States filed its Complaint 

in this Court seeking civil penalties and other injunctive 

relief pursuant to §§ 5(l), 13(b), and 16(a) of the FTC Act. 

Simultaneous therewith, the United States filed a Motion for a 

Preliminary Injunction seeking an order enjoining Defendants 

from violating the Modified Final Order. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 16. The 

Court denied the United States’ Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction without prejudice on September 14, 2010, finding that 

the Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Modified Final 

Order while Defendants’ appeal challenging the legality of the 

Modified Final Order was pending before the D.C. Circuit. See
6 

Order, Sept. 14, 2010, Docket No. 11.3 The FTC then filed an 

emergency motion for an order of enforcement pendente lite with 

the D.C. Circuit. The Circuit granted the United States’ motion 

on November 22, 2010. See Per Curiam Order, Daniel Chapter One, 

No. 10-1064 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (“Daniel Chapter One is 

hereby enjoined to obey forthwith the modified final order of 

the Federal Trade Commission issued January 25, 2010, in Docket 

No. 9329, In the Matter of Daniel Chapter One and James 

Feijo.”); see also Pl.’s SMF ¶ 17. Defendants then filed a 

motion with the D.C. Circuit seeking a stay of the enforcement 

of Part V.B of the Modified Final Order. The D.C. Circuit 

rejected this request on December 7, 2010. See Per Curiam 

Order, Daniel Chapter One, No. 10-1064 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010); 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 18. 

 3

 The Court also denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 

concluding that the United States’ penalty suit was properly 

before the Court. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(l) (permitting the 

Attorney General of the United States to file an action to 

recover civil penalties against “[a]ny person, partnership, or 

corporation who violates an order of the Commission after it has 

become final, and while such order is in effect”); see also 

United States v. Standard Educ. Soc’y, 55 F. Supp. 189, 193 

(N.D. Ill. 1943) (“The Circuit Court of Appeals is vested with 

exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Commission’s cease and 

desist orders under Section 5(d), but that court has no 

jurisdiction over penalty suits. . . . Continuance of the 

enforcement proceedings in the Circuit Court of Appeals appears 

to be no bar to the commencement of a penalty suit, if, prior to 

the commencement of the suit, the Commission’s order . . . has 

become final . . . .”). 
7 

On December 10, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied Defendants’ 

petition for review of the Modified Final Order, concluding that 

“the Commission properly exercised jurisdiction over [Daniel 

Chapter One],” and that “[Daniel Chapter One]’s arguments based 

upon the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 

are wholly without merit.” Daniel Chapter One v. FTC, 405 F. 

App’x 505, 505-06 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Defendants then filed a 

petition for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on May 23, 

2011. See Daniel Chapter One v. FTC, No. 10-1292, 131 S. Ct. 

2917 (2011). 

Following issuance of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate, the 

United States renewed its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in 

this Court. In addition, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the 

proceedings pending completion of a federal criminal 

investigation, and disposition of any resulting indictments and 

prosecutions, of James Feijo and Daniel Chapter One in the State 

of Rhode Island. See Defs.’ Mot. to Stay, Docket No. 22. The 

Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay without prejudice during 

a hearing held on May 9, 2011. On June 22, 2011, the Court 

granted the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 

enjoined Defendants from violating the FTC’s Modified Final 

Order. See Order and Memorandum Opinion, Docket Nos. 31 and 32. 

On July 29, 2011, the United States filed a Motion for an 

Order to Show Cause why Daniel Chapter One, James Feijo, and 
8 

Patricia Feijo4 should not be held in contempt of the Court’s 

June 22, 2011 Order. The Court subsequently ordered Defendants 

to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. The 

Court held a contempt hearing on May 9, 2012. During that 

hearing, the United States presented evidence and testimony 

regarding Defendants’ purported violations of the Modified Final 

Order. After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the Court 

found Daniel Chapter One, James Feijo, and Patricia Feijo in 

civil contempt. Specifically, the Court concluded that James 

Feijo, Patricia Feijo, and Daniel Chapter One (the “Contemnors”) 

had continued to violate the Modified Final Order by 

(1) continuing to make representations on their radio show that 

 4

 Although Patricia Feijo is not a defendant in this action, 

the United States argued that she was bound by the preliminary 

injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), 

which provides that a preliminary injunction binds: 

(A) the parties; 

(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, 

and attorneys; and 

(C) other persons who are in active concert or 

participation with anyone described in Rule 

65(d)(2)(A) or (B) as long as those individuals 

“receive actual notice of it by personal service or 

otherwise[.]” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). The United States argued that 

Patricia Feijo received actual notice of the Order and that she 

was “in active concert or participation” with James Feijo and 

Daniel Chapter One. See Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for 

Order to Show Cause at 11. Defendants also do not dispute that 

Patricia Feijo is an agent, representative, or employee of 

Daniel Chapter One. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 50; Defs.’ Statement of 

Genuine Issues ¶ 50, Docket No. 42-2. 
9 

their products treat or cure cancer without competent and 

reliable scientific evidence to substantiate those 

representations, (2) encouraging potential customers to visit 

websites containing Daniel Chapter One publications that contain 

prohibited information and endorsements of the prohibited 

supplements, (3) not removing certain representations from the 

websites within their control, which Contemnors conceded 

included www.danielchapterone.com, www.dc1ministry.com, and 

www.dc1freedom.com, and (4) failing to mail the required notice 

to all consumers who purchased the Products between January 1, 

2005, and April 2, 2010.5 The Court allowed the Contemnors two 

weeks to attempt to purge the contempt and scheduled another 

hearing in order to determine whether or not the contempt had 

been purged. 

On May 22, 2012, James Feijo submitted a certification of 

compliance with the Court’s Order. In that certification, Mr. 

Feijo stated that all notices had been sent out in compliance 

with the Court’s order; that prohibited representations had been 

removed from www.dc1freedom.com, www.danielchapterone.com, the 

dc1 online store, and www.dc1ministry.com; that Contemnors had 

ceased answering health questions on their radio show or 

 5

 Because neither party has requested an official transcript 

of the May 9, 2012 contempt hearing, the Court relies on its own 

notes and recollections, as well as draft versions of the 

hearing transcript. 
10 

inviting other callers to answer questions; and that Contemnors 

were not mentioning other people’s websites containing Daniel 

Chapter One information. See James Feijo’s Certification of 

Compliance at 2-4, Docket No. 51. At a subsequent hearing on 

May 23, 2012, the United States presented additional evidence 

that Contemnors had not purged the contempt, but the Court gave 

Contemnors until May 24, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. to make a showing to 

the Court sufficient to demonstrate their compliance with the 

Court’s Order. On May 24, 2012, Defendants filed a Supplemental 

Certification of Compliance with the Court’s Order, and the 

United States filed a Notice of Failure to Purge. See Defs.’ 

Supplemental Certification of Compliance with Order, Docket No. 

52; Pl.’s Notice of Failure to Purge, Docket No. 53. The Court 

determined that Contemnors had taken sufficient actions to purge 

themselves of contempt, and therefore the Court vacated its 

Contempt Order. Minute Order, May 24, 2012. 

On September 30, 2011, the United States filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Liability. That motion is ripe for 

determination by the Court. 

B. Violations of the Modified Final Order 

 The United States alleges that Defendants have made 

prohibited representations on their radio show and on websites 

within their control without possessing competent and reliable 

scientific evidence. 
11 

1. Websites 

 According to the United States, from April 2, 2010 through 

June 6, 2011, Defendants controlled the website 

www.dc1freedom.com/guilty-of-healing-cancer. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 21. 

That website contained textual content asserting that Daniel 

Chapter One had healed people of cancer, specifically, the web 

page was titled “Guilty of Healing Cancer” and it stated, 

“Daniel Chapter One World Ministry for Jesus Christ found guilty 

of healing people of cancer!” Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 22-24; see also 

Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. K. The United States also alleges that 

Defendants and their associates have established online forums 

and groups where treatment advice is provided. For example, the 

United States contends -- and Defendants dispute -- that Daniel 

Chapter One controlled and had administrative privileges over 

the content on the online forum http://dc1fellowship.com. Pl.’s 

SMF ¶ 25. That forum contains a post requesting information 

about treating throat cancer. In response, a user named David 

states: “[t]o help in healing cancer, we believe the Lord has 

provided the following products,” and then David provided dosing 

information for 7 Herb Formula, Bio Shark, and GDU. The post by 

David is dated July 16, 2010, and it appeared on the website 

http://dc1fellowship.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=291 from July 

16, 2010 through June 6, 2011. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 26-27; see also 

Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. L. Additionally, the United States alleges -- 
12 

and Defendants dispute -- that Defendants controlled and had 

administrative privileges to remove the content on the website 

http://healthfellowship.org. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 28. That website 

contains a forum post requesting advice about treating 

pancreatic cancer, along with a response from the user David on 

September 21, 2010, stating, “[f]or cancer, we believe the Lord 

has provided the following products to help with healing,” and 

listing dosing information for 7 Herb Formula, Bio Shark, and 

GDU. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 29-30; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. M. 

 Finally, the United States asserts -- and Defendants 

dispute -- that Defendants controlled the content published on 

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/danielchapterone/files/ 

(the “Yahoo Group”). Pl.’s SMF ¶ 31. As discussed in more 

detail infra, Section I.B.2., the Yahoo Group has also been 

promoted on Defendants’ radio show. The Yahoo Group contains 

several Daniel Chapter One publications that can be downloaded, 

including “The Most Simple Guide to the Most Difficult Diseases” 

(the “Guidebook”) and a publication titled “Cancer Newsletter, 

Millennium Edition, 2002” (the “Cancer Newsletter”). See Pl.’s 

MSJ, Ex. N. The Guidebook was available on the Daniel Chapter 

One Yahoo Group from January 2, 2011 through June 6, 2011. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 33. The “Introduction” to the Guidebook states that 

it contains “protocols we used successfully,” and that “[m]any 

have testified that these basic protocols are effective, when 
13 

adhered to as part of an overall health plan.” Pl.'s SMF ¶ 34; 

see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. O. A page within the Guidebook titled 

“CANCER” lists 7 Herb Formula, Bio Shark, BioMixx, and GDU Caps 

as “the most essential products” for treating cancer. Pl.’s SMF 

¶ 35; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. P. The Cancer Newsletter was also 

available on the Daniel Chapter One Yahoo Group from January 10, 

2011 through June 6, 2011. This publication contains 

information about using Defendants’ products to treat and cure 

cancer, as well as stories about individuals who have allegedly 

used Daniel Chapter One products successfully to treat cancer. 

For example, the Cancer Newsletter states, “Daniel Chapter One 

GDU Caps contain[] proteolytic enzymes that metabolize protein 

and can aid the body in breaking down a tumor[,]” “7 Herb 

Formula helps battle cancer[,]” “[BioMixx] is used to assist the 

body in fighting cancer and in healing the destructive effects 

of radiation and chemotherapy treatments.” Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 36-37; 

see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. Q. 

2. Radio Show 

In addition, Defendants provide information on their radio 

show about using their products to treat or cure cancer, and 

they solicit endorsements from others by encouraging listeners 

to call the show and answer health questions. The United States 

asserts that Defendants controlled the audio content published 

on http://feeds.thepodzone.com/dc1hw from April 2, 2010 through 
14 

June 6, 2011. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 38. This website contains recordings 

of Defendants’ past radio shows. The United States has also 

preserved recordings of these shows on CD and filed them with 

the Court. For example, in a show broadcast on May 27, 2010, 

Defendants had the following conversation with a caller named 

Phil: 

PHIL: I’ve been diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer with 

lymph node involvement and I had a brain tumor, which they 

did gamma knife surgery on and that resolved that. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. 

PHIL: But it’s gotten into the central lymph nodes. I have 

a reoccurring tumor in the left lung and two smaller tumors 

in the right lung. What would be -- what would be -- you 

know, what would work for that? Is there anything that you 

have that would [inaudible]? 

JAMES FEIJO: Well, did they tell you they’ve never had a 

successful -- they’ve never had a person survive lung 

cancer with their treatments? 

PHIL: Pretty much. Pretty much that’s what the doctor said. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Yeah. 

PHIL: He suggested chemo starting next week. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah, that’s a waste of time. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Well, yeah, the most recent studies that we 

have looked at, they actually had come to the conclusion 

that the chemotherapy and radiation for lung cancer doesn’t 

extend life, it does the opposite. 

JAMES FEIJO: We really need to have somebody call in right 

now. This is -- 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Yeah, we can’t tell you, Phil -- 

JAMES FEIJO: -- very important. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: -- what we would do only because we’re 

under a cease and desist order right now from the FTC. 

It’s quite an evil order. But it’s prohibiting us from 

free speech right now. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 14:35-15:42. 

James Feijo went on to state: “You know, Phil, there’s so many 

people, I give you this statement here -- many, many people, we 
15 

have, in just two months we gathered about eight inches high of 

affidavits of people with all types of cancers and illnesses 

that were supposed to be dead, who were told that they had 

nothing that could be done for them. They’re still alive, 

they’re free of their cancers. . . . We do have someone calling 

in with an answer for you.” Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 15:55-16:30. 

Later, with the caller Phil still on the line, Defendants 

accepted a call from a caller named Bob, who discussed what 

Defendants’ products had done for his family, and then stated: 

BOB: Since you’re in advanced stage -- that’s what it 

sounds like. 

PHIL: Stage 4. 

BOB: Yep. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. 

BOB: Okay, yeah, that’s advanced. All right. Right now 

first thing, 7 Herb Formula. You want to do a half to 

three-quarters of a bottle for the first three to four 

days. 

PHIL: One-half to three-quarters -- 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah, don’t worry about writing it down, Phil. 

The producer’s going to be writing it down and give it to 

you later. So, we’ll just let Bob share it with you, okay? 

PHIL: Oh, okay. Okay, all right. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. 

BOB: Okay. And then after this, Phil, do about four ounces 

four times a day for about two weeks. 

PHIL: Uh-huh. 

BOB: After that four ounces a day, until -- until you’re 

cured. 

PHIL: Okay. 

BOB: The second item would be GDU. That’s for inflammation 

and pain you might be having. I’d do three to six capsules 

three times a day. But you have to do them a half-hour 

before meals. 

PHIL: Mm-hmm, okay. 

BOB: One other thing, since, like I said, it’s in your 

lungs and your lymph nodes and you have tumors, I’d get on 

the BioShark. I’d do at least four -- four capsules three 
16 

times a day with meals. And one other thing, it’s very 

important, what they told my cousin, Bob, also, was to do -

- get the BioMixx and do about four to five scoops, like I 

say, in soy milk, two times a day. 

JAMES FEIJO: Are you losing weight there, Phil, at all or-- 

PHIL: I’ve probably lost seven or eight, maybe ten pounds. 

JAMES FEIJO: And how about the energy level here? 

PHIL: It’s decreased. 

JAMES FEIJO: Okay. If there’s no BioMixx because of the 

government, 1st Kings would be great and you can do four or 

five scoops of that, two to three times a day in place of 

meals, you know. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 19:25-21:20. 

Later in the broadcast, James Feijo stated: 

JAMES FEIJO: Phil, what Bob’s saying is what we see quite 

often. People will start doing the guidelines that Bob 

just mentioned. They’ll be doing great, they’ll be doing 

terrific. We’ve seen it I can’t tell you how many times, 

Phil. Well, we don’t know if God’s going to use this to 

heal you or not. We don’t know God’s will, you know? 

PHIL: Exactly. 

JAMES FEIJO: We know -- we know that as soon as you -- see, 

let me share one thing. The suggestions Bob just gave you, 

Phil, everybody listening, are suggestions to boost God’s 

order that he has given us, our immune system, to fight the 

disease state of any situation. Okay? 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 22:54-23:34. 

Subsequently, the radio show took another call, and a caller 

named Doug provided information about 7 Herb Formula and 

BioShark. Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 28:20-29:17. In response to 

Doug’s comments about BioShark, James Feijo stated: 

JAMES FEIJO: I’ll share an interesting thing with you all 

concerning the issue of the BioShark. We had a gentleman 

come in. He had Gulf War -- not Gulf War, he was Agent 

Orange exposed. They gave him -- they put him on Hospice. 

Four years ago, he was supposed to die and his tumor 

starting shrinking using the advice that you’ve been given 

here or are being given, too. And then he came in and he 
17 

said, oh, I went back and they said -- they showed a little 

enlargement. So, I asked him what was going on. He said, 

well, I -- I was doing so well, I cut back on the BioShark. 

So, it’s interesting that he had that kind of response. 

But it is about blood supply, you see? 

PHIL: Right. 

JAMES FEIJO: And, so -- my wife’s worried that -- you know, 

this is -- 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Well, I want to -- 

JAMES FEIJO: See, this is the problem with the Nazis that 

we’re -- yes, Trish! 

DOUG: Well, that’s what I would have told him. I mean, I 

didn’t know about the Gulf War guy, but shutting the blood 

supply off to the tumor is really a very important thing. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 29:18-30:26. At 

the end of this conversation, James Feijo instructed Phil to 

join the online fellowship, and Patricia Feijo told him that “if 

you want to just order product, you can do that at the 800 

number or online.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, 

at 40:04-40:34. James Feijo’s wife, Patricia Feijo, then 

provided the full phone number for individuals to call and 

stated, “you can get 7 Herb Formula. You can get GDU or BioShark 

for yourself or a loved one.” Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R, at 41:26-41:38.

 During another radio show broadcast on May 28, 2010, James 

and Patricia Feijo had the following discussion with a caller: 

PATRICIA FEIJO: How can we help you? 

MARCIA: Well, my mom was just diagnosed with cancer. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Yeah. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. What type, honey? 

MARCIA: Huh? 

JAMES FEIJO: What type of cancer? 

MARCIA: Pancreatic. 

JAMES FEIJO: Oh, my. And what did they say? What did the 

doctors tell her? 

MARCIA: Well, they -- 
18 

JAMES FEIJO: Pretty advanced or what did they say? 

MARCIA: Well, right now, I’m supposed to find out Tuesday, 

JAMES FEIJO: Mm-hmm. 

MARCIA: -- of what stage it’s at -- 

JAMES FEIJO: Mm-hmm. 

MARCIA: -- and if it’s operable or, you know, what kind of 

tumor it is and, if she can, to get chemo or radiation. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yeah. Well, let me tell you right off the bat, 

chemo’s a lie, radiation’s a lie. They’ve never cured 

anybody of pancreatic cancer with their chemo and 

radiation. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: No, there was a Dr. Kelley. I have his 

little book in my office. And he healed his own pancreatic 

cancer. Now, Jim -- 

JAMES FEIJO: So, there are options out there. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: He healed himself naturally. And he begins 

his little book with, it was a blessing in disguise that I 

didn’t have health insurance and couldn’t go for chemo or 

radiation. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: But I just wanted to explain to you, 

Marcia, that we’re under a cease and desist order. So, Jim 

and Trish at Daniel Chapter One and the other people here, 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: -- can’t tell you what Dr. Kelly did or 

what we have done over the years. 

MARCIA: Uh-huh. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: But, hopefully, someone will call in and -- 

because they’ve heard you now and will call in and help you 

out with the kind of things naturally that your mom could 

do. And the other thing is you can join our fellowship and 

get -- or your mom can directly and get fellowship that 

way, get ministry rather. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Some health ministry. 

JAMES FEIJO: So, we’re going to ask someone to give us a 

call right now. The other thing is, Marcia, you can go to 

DanielChapterOneFreedom.com. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

JAMES FEIJO: And you can join the DC1 fellowship and people 

from all over the country are helping each other, okay? 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 44; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. S, at 9:15-11:20. With 

Marcia still on the line, James and Patricia Feijo accepted a 

call from a caller named Troy: 
19 

JAMES FEIJO: Can you share with Marcia what she can try to 

start for her dad? 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Mom. 

MARCIA: Mom. 

JAMES FEIJO: Mom, rather. And, Marcia, by the way, the 

producer will be writing it down, okay? 

MARCIA: Okay, thank you. 

TROY: Okay, Marcia, here it goes, I’ll give you two. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

TROY: Two of their prize products are BioShark and the 

ever-present 7-Herb Formula. 

MARCIA: 7-Herb Formula and BioShark, okay. 

TROY: That’s two of them right there. 

MARCIA: Okay. And I believe my husband went in to Daniel 

Chapter One this morning, as a matter of fact. 

JAMES FEIJO: Oh, yeah? 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Oh. 

MARCIA: And -- 

JAMES FEIJO: Oh, yes. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. And he went and bought some. 

JAMES FEIJO: Oh, so you got -- you got the 7-Herb? 

MARCIA: Yep. 

JAMES FEIJO: Oh, okay, all right. And then did he get 

anything else, too? Did he get the BioShark that Troy 

mentioned? 

MARCIA: I believe -- yes, I believe he got the BioShark and 

he got some kind of a -- it used to be the AM and PM drink. 

JAMES FEIJO: Yes, it’s 1st Kings now or ENDO-24. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Yeah. Is your mom having a hard time 

eating, Marcia? 

MARCIA: Yes, she is. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Okay, yeah, that’s great that he got that 

then. 

TROY: And another one is TPB. 

MARCIA: Okay. What is that? 

. . . 

TROY: No, Trish’s Special Blend -- Perfect Blend. Trish’s 

Perfect Blend, the one we call TPB. 

MARCIA: TPB? 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Yeah, the TPB. But what was it your 

husband got, the ENDO or the 1st Kings? 

MARCIA: He got the -- I think he got the one that has more 

protein and vitamins. 

. . . 

PATRICIA FEIJO: Just so you know, that’s interchangeable 

for the most part. 
20 

MARCIA: Okay. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: So, that’s good if he got the ENDO-24. 

MARCIA: Mm-hmm. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: That’s awesome then. 

JAMES FEIJO: Well, that’s awesome. 

PATRICIA FEIJO: She can get started and, again, you can 

join the fellowship for more ministry. She can join the 

fellowship directly if she’d like. Thanks so much, Troy. 

JAMES FEIJO: And by the way, that ENDO-24, three heaping 

scoops three, four times a day is better than food for her 

right now. 

MARCIA: Yeah, exactly. 

JAMES FEIJO: And please don’t hesitate -- now, Marcia, if 

you go and join the fellowship, then more people can offer 

you more help. This way, Troy, who just called in, was a 

big help. 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 44; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. S, at 11:45-14:20. 

During a radio broadcast on February 14, 2011, James Feijo 

stated: “[y]ou know, our voice has been hindered by the evil of 

our government. We can’t even give true testimony, signed 

affidavits of people who’ve cured or healed of cancer. Satan is 

alive and well in the FDA and the FTC and in Washington.” Pl.’s 

SMF ¶ 46; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. T, at 14:15-14:30. Later, 

James Feijo accepted a call from a caller named Greg, who 

informed listeners how to find and join the Daniel Chapter One 

Yahoo Group. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 47; Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. T, at 24:13-

24:40. James Feijo told Greg to “[t]ell them what the 

publications are on there -- awesome list, man[,]” and Greg 

responded by listing several available publications, including 

“we’ve got the BioGuide, we’ve got the Most Simple Guide[.]” 

Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. T, at 24:40-25:05. James Feijo then told 
21 

listeners that “there’s another site too, besides the Yahoo 

Group” and Greg responded, “yeah and that’s, health, health, 

let’s see, healthfellowship.org[.]” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 47; see also

Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. T, at 25:40-25:53. 

During a radio show broadcast on February 22, 2011, 

Defendants accepted a call from a caller named Patricia, who 

stated that her doctor had found a mass on her breast. See 

Pl.’s SMF ¶ 49; Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. U, at 7:20-7:45. James and 

Patricia Feijo instructed the caller not to get a biopsy, and 

Patricia Feijo stated that “if it is cancer, it can stir up the 

cells and can get them to spread[.]” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 49; Pl.’s MSJ, 

Ex. U, at 8:38-9:44. Patricia Feijo told the caller that she 

should take products “to treat it worst case scenario.” Id. 

Defendants then asked someone to call in to help answer the 

caller’s questions, and accepted a call from a caller named 

Greg, who said that, for “cancer . . . one thing I would add is 

BioShark to that.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 49; Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. U, at 22:35-

22:46. Patricia Feijo confirmed this suggestion, stating, 

“yeah, definitely.” Id. 

Finally, during a radio show broadcast on June 23, 2011, 

the Feijos took a call from an individual who identified himself 

as Curtis, and who said that his daughter had cancer. See Pl.’s 

Mot. for Order to Show Cause, Ex. A, at 30:00-30:45. James 

Feijo advised Curtis to go online and read the testimonies on 
22 

the Daniel Chapter One website to learn more, and stated that 

they support “God’s way” of treating cancer through the use of 7 

Herb Formula, BioShark, and GDU. Id. at 30:45-34:15. In 

addition, James Feijo told Curtis that “the government is trying 

to stop us from helping you and your daughter . . . they want to 

not let us tell you about 7 Herb Formula, BioShark, and GDU, 

that God has given us to help people around the world.” Id. at 

37:00-38:05. Patricia Feijo added: 

[W]e do care about your daughter . . . we just heard from 

our lawyer that a judge ruled in favor of the Trade 

Commission, and so, you know, basically we can be fined out 

of existence tonight or, or, put into prison, and we want 

people to know the reality that we’re sitting here, willing 

to risk even our lives, to serve the lord and to serve you, 

right, but the situation is such that I would say get the 

product while you can, even stock up while you can, and if 

one day you won’t be able to get our products then just, 

you know, try to continue to follow pretty much what those 

products are, the herbs, the enzymes, because that’s what 

we have seen work for many years. 

Id. at 38:05-39:00. James Feijo then gave Curtis information on 

how to order the products, and directed Curtis to the 

healthfellowship.org website for more information. Id. at 

39:00-40:00. At other times during this same show, James Feijo 

stated that Daniel Chapter One’s products, including GDU, were 

created and intended by God “for you, for your health and 

healing, as a prevention, to mitigate, to treat, to heal, to 

cure.” Id. at 8:30-9:40. Patricia Feijo told listeners that 

they did not share their experiences with the products “until we 
23 

had used it for a while and saw that it did indeed work, and 

then we began to share with people, hey, this is what works for 

this and that.” Id. at 23:10-23:30. Patricia Feijo stated that 

the testimonies the Feijos had received from their customers and 

placed on their website and in their BioGuide were a sampling of 

their customers’ experiences and that the results in the 

testimonials were “very typical of what people experience.” Id.

at 23:40-24:35. James and Patricia Feijo went on to describe 

how 7-Herb Formula had cured a man who had renal cancer. See 

id. at 24:35-26:45. 

3. Competent and Reliable Scientific Evidence 

According to the United States -- but as disputed by 

Defendants -- at the time the above representations were made, 

Defendants did not possess or rely upon competent scientific 

evidence, as defined in Part I.A of the Modified Final Order,6

that substantiated the representations. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 51. 

4. Failure to Mail Notice 

Finally, the parties do not dispute that Defendants have 

failed to send the notice described in Part V.B of the Modified 

 6

 The Modified Final Order defines “competent and reliable 

scientific evidence” as “tests, analyses, research, studies, or 

other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the 

relevant area, that has been conducted and evaluated in an 

objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures 

generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and 

reliable results.” Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. D, at 1. 
24 

Final Order. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 52; Defs.’ Statement of Genuine 

Issues ¶ 52. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 

Summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party 

has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 325 (1986). “A fact is material if it ‘might affect 

the outcome of the suit under the governing law,’ and a dispute 

about a material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 

party.’” Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986)). The moving party bears the initial burden of 

demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact. 

See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In determining whether a genuine 

issue of material facts exists, the Court must view all facts in 

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 

587 (1986); Keyes v. Dist. of Columbia, 372 F.3d 434, 436 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment 

“may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his 
25 

pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 

B. Sections 5(l) and 13(b) of the FTC Act7

Section 5(l) of the FTC Act, regarding penalties for 

violations of orders, injunctions, and other appropriate 

equitable relief, provides: 

Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates an 

order of the Commission after it has become final, and 

while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the 

United States a civil penalty of not more than $ 10,000 for 

each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and 

may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney 

General of the United States. Each separate violation of 

such an order shall be a separate offense, except that in 

the case of a violation through continuing failure to obey 

or neglect to obey a final order of the Commission, each 

day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be 

deemed a separate offense. In such actions, the United 

States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory 

injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as 

they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final 

orders of the Commission. 

15 U.S.C. § 45(l). 

 Section 13(b) of the Act states, in relevant part: 

Whenever the Commission has reason to believe 

(1) that any person, partnership, or corporation is 

violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law 

enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, and 

(2) that the enjoining thereof pending the issuance of a 

complaint by the Commission and until such complaint is 

dismissed by the Commission or set aside by the court on 

review, or until the order of the Commission made 

 7

 The United States also brings this action pursuant to 

Section 16(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 56(a). That provision 

sets forth the procedures for the exercise of the Commission’s 

and the Attorney General’s authority to litigate. 
26 

thereon has become final, would be in the interest of 

the public 

the Commission by any of its attorneys designated by it for 

such purpose may bring suit in a district court of the 

United States to enjoin any such act or practice. Upon a 

proper showing that . . . such action would be in the 

public interest, and after notice to the defendant, a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction may 

be granted without bond . . . . [I]n proper cases the 

Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the court may 

issue, a permanent injunction. 

15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

The FTC Act entrusts the administration of the Act to the 

FTC as “a body of experts.” FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 

37, 54 (1948). “The enforcement responsibility of the courts, 

once a Commission order has become final . . . is to adjudicate 

questions concerning the order’s violation, not questions of 

fact which support that valid order.” Id. (internal citations 

omitted); see also United States v. H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc., 

262 F. Supp. 383, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) (“[I]t is well settled 

that a defendant cannot attack a final cease and desist order in 

a subsequent enforcement proceeding.”); United States v. 

Vitasafe Corp., 212 F. Supp. 397, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (same). 

In an action by the government to recover civil penalties “[a]ll 

that the government need prove is that a cease and desist order 

has in fact been violated[.]” H. M. Prince Textiles, 262 F. 

Supp. at 388. 
27 

III. ANALYSIS 

In response to the United States’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Defendants argue -- without setting forth their own 

specific facts in response -- that six issues of material fact 

bar summary judgment at this stage. Specifically, Defendants 

dispute that: 

1. Defendants controlled the content published on the 

website http://www.dc1freedom.com/guilty-of-healingcancer from April 2, 2010 through June 6, 2011; 

2. Defendants controlled the content published on the 

website 

http://dc1fellowship.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=291 

and had administrative privileges to remove content 

published on this website from April 2, 2010 through 

June 6, 2011; 

3. Defendants controlled the content published on 

http://healthfellowship.org/thread-313.html and had 

administrative privileges to remove content published 

on this website from April 2, 2010 to June 6, 2011; 

4. Defendants controlled the content published on the 

website 

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/danielchapterone/

files/ and had the administrative privileges to remove 

content published on this website from April 2, 2010 

through June 6, 2011; 

5. Defendants controlled the audio content published on 

the Daniel Chapter One Healthwatch feed, 

http://feeds.thepodzone.com/dc1hw, from April 2, 2010 

through June 6, 2011; 

6. At the time the representations on Defendants’ 

websites and radio shows were made, Defendants did not 

possess or rely upon competent and reliable scientific 

evidence, as defined in Part I.A of the Modified Final 

Order, that substantiated the representations. 
28 

See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ at 6-10; Defs.’ Statement of 

Genuine Issues ¶¶ 21, 25, 28, 31, 38, and 51.8

However, Defendants admitted three of these issues during 

the contempt hearings in this case and in their subsequent 

certifications filed with the Court. In particular, Defendants 

admitted that they control the content published on 

www.dc1freedom.com (disputed issue 1),9 and that they control the 

audio content published on the Daniel Chapter One Healthwatch 

feed (disputed issue 5).10 See James Feijo’s Certification of 

Compliance with Order at ¶¶ 7, 16, Docket No. 51. In addition, 

by conceding that they had violated Part II of the Modified 

Final Order, Defendants conceded that, at the time 

representations on these websites and radio shows were made, 

 8

 Both in their Opposition and during the contempt hearing, 

Defendants conceded that they had not mailed the notice required 

in Part V.B of the Modified Final Order. See Defs.’ Statement 

of Genuine Issues ¶ 52. Subsequent to the contempt hearing, 

Defendants certified that they had mailed the notice, as of May 

18, 2012. See James Feijo’s Certification of Compliance with 

Order, Docket No. 51. Defendants’ failure to mail the notice 

between April 2, 2010 and May 18, 2012 constitutes a violation 

of the Modified Final Order for which Defendants are liable. 

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT as conceded the United States’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability as to Count II (Failure 

to Mail Notice). 

9

 Defendants also admitted that they control the content 

published on www.danielchapterone.com and www.dc1ministry.com. 

10  The Daniel Chapter One Healthwatch feed was also 

previously accessible through www.danielchapterone.com, which 

Defendants admitted at the hearing that they controlled. See 

Pl.’s Reply at 4. 
29 

Defendants did not possess or rely upon competent and reliable 

scientific evidence to substantiate those representations 

(disputed issue 6). See id. at ¶ 1 (“We have ceased from making 

prohibited representations, as described in Part II of the 

Modified Final Order, on our radio show and on any websites that 

are within our control. We have ceased from directing potential 

customers to websites that are not in our control but which 

contain prohibited representations, as described in Part II of 

the Modified Final Order. We have worked diligently to remove 

the prohibited representations, as described in Part II of the 

Modified Final Order, from the websites within our control.”).11

 11 In addition, Defendants would be collaterally estopped 

from arguing in this proceeding that they possess and rely upon 

competent and reliable scientific evidence. “[O]nce a court has 

decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that 

decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a 

difference cause of action involving a party to the first case.” 

Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 254 (D.C. 

Cir. 1992) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)). 

A prior holding has preclusive effect when (1) the same issue 

being raised was contested by the parties and submitted for 

judicial determination in the prior case; (2) the issue was 

actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent 

jurisdiction in that prior case; and (3) preclusion in the 

second case would not work a basic unfairness to the party bound 

by the first determination. See Yamaha, 961 F.2d at 254 (citing 

McLaughlin v. Bradlee, 803 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986); 

Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982)). The Supreme 

Court has held that judgments of administrative agencies should 

be given preclusive effect if the agency was acting in a 

judicial capacity, such as in cases where the agency provides a 

full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. See Univ. of 

Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 797-98 (1986. The products and 

representations at issue in this action are identical to the 

products and representations that the FTC considered. The 
30 

With respect to the other three disputed issues, Defendants 

affirmatively denied that they control the content published on 

http://dc1fellowship.com, http://healthfellowship.org, and 

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/danielchapterone (the Yahoo 

Group) (disputed issues 2, 3, and 4). Defendants admitted, 

however, that they directed callers to these websites. See 

James Feijo’s Certification of Compliance with Order at ¶ 13. 

Moreover, the excerpts of radio broadcasts from May 28, 2010 and 

February 14, 2011 provide independent evidence that James Feijo 

directed listeners to all three of these websites, which is a 

separate violation of the Modified Final Order. In particular, 

Part II of the Modified Final Order specifies that Defendants, 

“directly or through any corporation, partnership, subsidiary, 

 

administrative law judge in the FTC action determined that 

Defendants did not possess or rely upon competent and reliable 

scientific evidence to substantiate their claims that the 

Products treated or cured cancer. This issue was actually and 

necessarily determined by the FTC, and indeed, the Court of 

Appeals reviewed and affirmed that determination. See Daniel 

Chapter One, 405 F. App’x at 506 (“Because it is undisputed 

[Daniel Chapter One] did not support its claims with ‘competent 

and reliable scientific evidence’ including clinical trials with 

human subjects, the Commission properly concluded [Daniel 

Chapter One’s] advertisements were deceptive for want of a 

reasonable basis.”). Finally, the Court finds that applying 

collateral estoppel in this case would not work a basic 

unfairness to Defendants because they were able to fully present 

their arguments in the proceeding before the Commission and the 

D.C. Circuit regarding these same issues. See, e.g., Morgan v. 

FAA, 657 F. Supp. 2d 146, 153 (D.D.C. 2009) (applying issue 

preclusion where Merit Systems Protection Board determined the 

same issues and that ruling was affirmed by the Federal 

Circuit). 
31 

division, trade name, or other device,” are barred from making 

certain representations about the Products. Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. D, 

at 2. By referring to and directing listeners to these websites 

during their radio broadcasts, Defendants were using the 

websites as a “device” through which they were able to convey 

the prohibited representations. 

Even if Defendants’ act of directing listeners to the 

remaining three websites did not constitute a violation of the 

Modified Final Order, these issues are not material to the 

conclusion that Defendants violated the Modified Final Order.12 

At the contempt hearing, the Court concluded that there was 

clear and convincing evidence that Defendants had violated Part 

II of the Modified Final Order by (1) continuing to make 

representations on their radio show that their products treat or 

cure cancer without competent and reliable scientific evidence 

to substantiate those representations, (2) encouraging potential 

customers to visit websites containing Daniel Chapter One 

publications that contain prohibited information and 

endorsements of the prohibited supplements, and (3) not removing 

certain representations from the websites within their control, 

which Defendants conceded included www.danielchapterone.com, 

www.dc1ministry.com, and www.dc1freedom.com. See Order Holding 

 12 The Court therefore need not draw an adverse inference 

from Defendants’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment. 
32 

Daniel Chapter One, James Feijo and Patricia Feijo in Civil 

Contempt at 2-3, Docket No. 50. Notably, Defendants nowhere 

dispute that the representations made on these websites and 

their radio shows constituted violations of the Modified Final 

Order. 

Indeed, the examples provided by the United States only 

further support the conclusion that Defendants violated the 

Modified Final Order. For example, during the May 27, 2010 

radio broadcast, James Feijo made representations that BioShark 

was an effective treatment to shrink tumors. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; 

see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. R. In addition, Defendants accepted 

calls from other individuals who recommended using the Products 

to treat stage 4 lung cancer, and Defendants affirmed those 

recommendations. See, e.g., Pl.’s SMF ¶ 41; see also Pl.’s MSJ, 

Ex. R, at 22:54-23:34 (“JAMES FEIJO: . . . see, let me share one 

thing. The suggestions Bob just gave you, Phil, everybody 

listening, are suggestions to boost God’s order that he has 

given us, our immune system, to fight the disease state of any 

situation.”). James Feijo’s statements unquestionably violated 

Part II of the Modified Final Order. In addition, the advice 

provided by other callers regarding the use of the Products 

constituted “endorsements,” as prohibited by the Modified Final 

Order, because listeners were likely to believe that the 

information provided “reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, 
33 

or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, 

even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those 

of the sponsoring advertiser.” 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b). 

Similarly, during the May 28, 2010 broadcast, Defendants 

encouraged a caller to provide advice about using the Products 

to treat pancreatic cancer, and Defendants affirmed and 

contributed to that advice. See Pl.’s SMF ¶ 44; see also Pl.’s 

MSJ, Ex. S, at 9:15-14:20. These representations and 

endorsements violated Part II of the Modified Final Order. 

Additionally, the June 23, 2011 radio broadcast contained 

numerous representations in violation of Part II of the Modified 

Final Order, including James Feijo’s statement that Defendants 

support “God’s way of treating cancer through the use of 7 Herb 

Formula, BioShark, and GDU.” Pl.’s Mot. for Order to Show 

Cause, Ex. A, at 30:45-34:15. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that the record is replete 

with evidence that Defendants have violated the Modified Final 

Order. The FTC Act authorizes awards of monetary civil 

penalties, mandatory injunctive relief, and other equitable 

relief for violations of final orders of the Commission. See 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(l), 53(b). Accordingly, there is no genuine issue 

as to any material fact and the United States is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law on liability as to Counts I 

(Prohibited Representations) and II (Failure to Mail Notice). 
34 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Liability is hereby GRANTED. The Court will 

direct the parties to file recommendations for further 

proceedings, including a proposed briefing schedule, if 

applicable, regarding the appropriate penalty or penalties. A 

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

SIGNED: Emmet G. Sullivan 

 United States District Judge 

 September 24, 2012