Friday, March 22, 2019


Can you say evil? The all powerful Henry Gilbert Garrard III’s disdain for women is legion.His law firm is Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & AShley, PC, Athens, GA. In the age of #MeToo, Henry Garrard stands shoulder to shoulder with Harvey Weinstein for his legal rape philosophy of “Don’t Kill the Company” causing the ritual physical abuse of literally thousands of women through the Court mandated sur...gical removal of synthetic surgical polypropylene mesh from their pelvises in order to receive settlement. PTO #298, Apirl 11, 2018Ethicon MDL 02327 West VA. The necessity of “Surgical Mesh Removal” is the strawman gaslighting creation of Garrard, much like the TLV of the Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos trials heard before retired Judge Daniel Stack.

Garrard”s power lies not in his legal knowledge or intelligence, but in the good old boy network. Without it, Garrard would be a pauper. As Garrard told me, face to face in his office in Athens, GA in October 2016, Judge Joseph Goodwin trusts him. What that means, I do not know. I just know from personal knowledge Henry Garrard III is not trustworthy.

"Henry G. Garrard III and other members of Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley involved in representing Pittsburgh Corning knew False Evidence was placed into the record that denied and/or suppressed the asbestos-cancer link, known by industry and their associations as far back as 1933. During the trial period when Henry and Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley represented Pittsburgh Corning, 448 members of the class died waiting for their cases to be heard. See Cimino v. Raymark Industries Inc., 739 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. 1990). Much worse is, hundreds of thousands have died from asbestos linked lung cancer and other asbestos caused diseases over the last 80 years.”

Monday, March 18, 2019


The Legal Cartel: Facts, Rumors & Innuendoes

by Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 - 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed Volume II Issue 4 March 17, 2019



A wooden stake into the heart of a vampire while sleeping in its coffin is supposed to ward them off. But I have no idea how to ward off shamans, sociopaths, liars, drug addicts that have infiltrated our court system. [Mark Mueller, Henry Garrard III pictured]

Maybe publishing the letter I had sent to Henry Garrard III’s law partners at Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley advising them of their responsibilities as members of the bar association will help. In more than a year and a half, my concerns about the mental health of Henry Garrard III don’t seem to have been addressed.
His power over all other Plaintiff’s Attorneys in the Pelvic Mesh Multidistrict litigation in West Virginia is untouched. He is still co-lead counsel of over 104,000 Pelvic mesh cases in West Virginia. And as far as I know, on the Plaintiff’s Steering Committees for Ethicon Physiomesh, Atrium CQur and the Johnson & Johnson talc cases.
I received no response and have no knowledge the partners at Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley took the appropriate actions to report Henry Garrard III to the State Bar of Georgia. So Henry Garrard III continues to wreak havoc in multidistrict litigations for everyone: the judges, the juries, the plaintiffs and their attorneys because of Henry’s well known philosophy “Don’t Kill the Company”.
However, there is one good development, for the future patients who will not be injured by pelvic mesh. The false evidence the plaintiffs steering committee introduced at Henry Garrard’s direction in order to keep the Criminal Predator Drug and Device Corporations alive and well has fortunately started to back fire with Becton Dickinson’s C.R. Bard withdrawing all pelvic mesh inventory worldwide for both SUI and POP on March 8, 2019. Dominoes coming?
SOCIOPATHS, SHAMANS, LIARS AND DRUG ADDICTS ASIDE, THE LEGAL DOCTRINE “WILLFUL BLINDNESS” may apply in this situation to all the plaintiff’s attorneys in every single case in West Virginia, not just Henry Garrard III’s partners?

So here’s the partners letter:
July 16, 2017

Sent via fax, e-mail and certified mail.
“Gary Blasingame, Esq.
E. Davison Burch, Esq.
Andrew J. Hill, Esq.
James B. Matthews, Esq.
Blasingame, Burch, Garrard and Ashley PC
440 College Avenue, #320
Athens, GA

Dear Messrs. Blasingame, Burch, Hill and Matthews, 
As you well know, I have worked for your firm as a legal consultant and expert witness since August 5, 2010 under a consultant/retainer agreement signed and authorized by Henry Garrard III, CEO and CFO of your firm. The original agreement was at $200.00 per hour and in
2011 was revised to $300.00 per hour. In May 2013, Mr. Garrard authorized another revision to the consultant/retainer agreement to make it a monthly minimum non-refundable retainer of $7,500.00 per month at $300.00 per hour up to 25 hours, any and all work over 25 hours per month to be compensated at the same rate of $300.00 per hour. All of this is well documented in your own accounting records. Theresa Wilson has copies of all statement/invoices from me and the accompanying payments. The last statement /invoice dated September 14, 2016 has an outstanding balance of $37,500.00, which I have sent to all of you before. No. 1 attached. This letter is an attempt to collect a debt.
A rather strange series of events has happened over the last 7 years in my legal consulting to Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley with Henry Garrard III, the CEO and CFO of your firm and your partner. I am not a mental health professional, but it seems his strange behavior may be attributed to some form of mental illness. His ongoing gaslighting is a well-documented tactic used by sociopaths. Whether or not Henry Garrard is, or might be, a sociopath would have to be determined by a mental health evaluation.
My observation is that Henry Garrard has repeatedly offered false evidence in various legal cases that should lead to his disbarment. He has also repeatedly offered false evidence related to the current consultant/retainer agreement debt of $37,500.00 owed to me by your firm and in relation to his position as head of the Fee and Cost Committee (FCC) for the various Common Benefits Funds in the MDL’s in the Southern District of West Virginia. His position related to my current invoice before the Ethicon MDL 02327 Common Benefits Fund for $732,000.00 payable to me includes false evidence and lacks integrity and common honesty. Mr. Garrard changes his position when speaking and/or communicating directly with me while taking a different position with other members of the Fee and Cost Committee (FCC). No. 2 attached.
The contract has been violated not only by non-payment of the consultant/retainer agreement for $37,500.00, but by the sharing of my privileged and confidential work product with all attorneys and their individual cases in the entire Multidistrict Litigation through PTO 84 Bard MDL 02187 dated August 26, 2013 No. 3 attached.
I have repeatedly documented my objections to this false evidence, both privately directly to him and publicly at Mass Torts Made Perfect and in e-mails to Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the 7 MDL’s in West Virginia and other publications. You, yourselves, have been included in these e-mails.
As there has been no response to my attempts to collect these debts from Mr. Garrard, or from you, I am sorry to say that I feel the best vehicle for me to correct this indefensible pattern and practice of false evidence related to me is through a grievance with the State Bar of Georgia.
I do believe it is incumbent on you to deal with your partner, CEO and CFO Henry Garrard’s, potential mental illness. Under the Model Rules of the ABA, as a firm you are responsible for his actions. You are aware of his actions toward me as I have included you in various communications directed to him for a very long time and you have read them.
Henry Garrard exhibits a lack of integrity and common honesty. This is a pattern and practice readily apparent from the public domain in his and your firm’s long term representation of Pittsburgh Corning from 1982-1999, defending the indefensible lies of the corporation through State of the Art (SOA) on the Threshold Limit Value (TLV). All of this is public information, including your own website,
            Please consider this:
…"it is quite another matter to permit  such  a person  to continue  as an  officer  of  the court." Unlike the considerations of punishment or restitution in criminal or civil matters, the interest and safety of the public are of the utmost importance in disbarment proceedings. The public has a right to  protection  from  a lawyer who, regardless of the cause, exhibits a lack of integrity and common honesty. p. 174
“If inability to practice is suspected by conduct unrelated to the practice of law, the  court  may  order  a  psychiatric  evaluation   with  an  emphasis on determining the attorney’s competence. p. 179
 “Malpractice insurance is unlikely to protect the mentally disordered attorney  from  the  pecuniary  consequences  of  misconduct. Misconduct caused by mental illness is generally viewed by insurance carriers even more narrowly  than  it  is  viewed  by  the Bar. Any  act  which  the attorney commits is considered intentional, and the concept of mens rea is inapplicable to the insurance  adjuster's analysis.” p. 180/181
Mental disorders may have severe consequences for attorneys and clients, but the structure of the Model Rules and their progeny  is such that the attorney’s firm will not be immune from repercussions either. The following section discusses the far-reaching consequences of mental disorder and misconduct for the attorney’s employers or partners.
Will the misconduct of the mentally disordered attorney give rise to liability on the part of his or her employer? The firm  employing  the  mentally disordered has two duties in this regard. The Rules of Professional Conduct provide  that  law  firms  must  have  in  place  managerial controls reasonably designed to give “reasonable assurance that all lawyers in  the firm conform to the Rules.” Secondly, a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules which is to “a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects [is required to] inform the appropriate professional authority.” In  other   words,  law  firms  are  responsible   for catching, reporting, and correcting the misconduct of their associates and partners, and failure to do so may lead to sanctions against the partners. p. 181/182
….and  that “[t]he fact  that  the ethical  duty  to report may create an irreparable schism between partners [does not] excuse the failure  to report.”
A mentally disordered attorney may be in a difficult professional position, but failure to take action on his or her own behalf places partners in a more difficult position. The partners will likely agonize over decisions forced on them when the illness or addiction reaches the point where it impairs the ability to practice. The firm may, as mentioned above, suggest counseling or threaten expulsion, but once the illness manifests itself by misconduct, it will be forced to report him or her. p. 187
The moral question is deeply personal, but the pragmatic question points straight to the Rules of Professional Responsibility.  Failure to address the existence of a mental disorder in a colleague leads to disaster for clients, for the attorney, and quite rightly, for the law firm. The spineless response of Pfenning’s partners hurt them all. p.189
Source: The Mentally Ill Attorney, Len Klingen,  Nova Law Review Vol 27, Issue 1, 2002, Article 6
“In a 1987 seminar for defense attorneys entitled ‘‘State of the Art Defense: Is it Real?,’’ Henry Garrard, a defense attorney, described how defense counsel should use the SOA defense in asbestos litigation:”
“…Although OSHA is a creation of the 1970’s, the basic mindset of the general public is that the government has been involved intricately in control of workplace exposures almost forever. Most of the people today have not grown up in an atmosphere that did not include significant government involvement. This can become a play for state-of-the-art throughout… Probably the final thing to consider is the necessity to warn and the different timings of warnings is to attempt to get the jury to place themselves back in the 1960’s, 50’s, and 40’s with the realization that times were different and expectations were different. Human factors experts or historians in general may be experts that we as defense lawyers have overlooked which might be helpful in making these presentations. Additionally, industrial hygienists who are not medical doctors probably should be used to a greater extent than they are used now to show the newness of that field and how they in fact rely upon the threshold limit value concept in general. After all, the threshold limit value concept is probably the best thing the defense has in its arsenal.6”
Source: “Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law” David Egilman, Tess Bird, Caroline Lee, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 2 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1077352514Z.000000000104
This presentation by Mr. Garrard to defense attorneys on how to implement the SOA defense strategy at the Defense Legal Institute in 1987 in reality is little more than the practice known as “Gas Lighting”, a tactic used by sociopaths and narcissists.                           
“Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.”
Usage: “Sociopaths and narcissists frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing.”
It is a huge misfortune Mr. Garrard’s well known philosophy “Don’t kill the company.” is and has been implemented in multiple surgical mesh litigations. Henry Garrard’s pattern and practice of introducing false evidence, as a “gaslighting technique”, continues.
Mr. Garrard uses these gaslighting techniques regarding the debt your firm owes me with letters, verbal misrepresentations directly to me and through Noah Murdock and Tammy Tiller. His lack of integrity and common honesty is unacceptable.
It is not my responsibility, but yours as partners at Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, as quoted again here below, to have managerial controls in place and to inform the appropriate professional authority:
“The firm  employing  the  mentally disordered has two duties in this regard. The Rules of Professional Conduct provide  that  law  firms  must  have  in  place  managerial controls reasonably designed to give “reasonable assurance that all lawyers in  the firm conform to the Rules.” Secondly, a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules which is to “a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects [is required to] inform the appropriate professional authority.” In  other   words,  law  firms  are  responsible   for catching, reporting, and correcting the misconduct of their associates and partners, and failure to do so may lead to sanctions against the partners. p. 181/182”
I am not a mental health professional but a very astute, savvy legal industry professional.
It is up to you to have Mr. Garrard evaluated for his mental health.
I would appreciate resolving this without further legal remedies, such as the grievance with the State Bar of Georgia, and/or litigation. Again, by the terms of the ABA Model Rules of conduct you have responsibility to address potential mental illness of your partner, CEO and CFO, Henry Garrard, and his lack of integrity and common honesty exhibited in the false evidence relating to payment for legal consulting and expert witness work for your firm and in the Bard MDL 02187.
Lana C. Keeton
© 2005 – 2017 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant . Expert Witness . Device Expert . Patient Advocate
1602 Alton Road, #423, Miami Beach, FL 33139


Facebook:  LANA KEETON  and  L.C. KEETON
Twitter:    @PlaintiffPower1

Volume II Issue 4 March 17, 2019
© 2005-2019 all rights reserved Lana C. Keeton
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.671.9331 phone  .  800.509.9917 fax  .  305.342.8002 cell phone

Sunday, March 10, 2019

The Legal Cartel: Facts, Rumors & Innuendoes
Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 – 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed Volume II Issue 3, March 8, 2019

C.R. BARD TO STOP SELLING ALL PELVIC #MESH FOR SUI & POP and intend to WITHDRAW REMAINING SUPPLY WORLDWIDE. Watch for the Domino Effect with Other Companies. 
How unfortunate that Henry Garrard III and Fred Thompson and Bryan Aylstock’s motto, “Don’t Kill the Company” has failed. With the smell of bankruptcy in the air, Becton Dickinson owned, C.R. Bard, has made a desperate decision. Give up hundreds of millions in revenue, to avoid the demise of the company. Praise the Lord thousands and thousands of women will not be barbarically wounded in the future with the these medieval mesh products. See quoted news stories below:

“Medical Device Alert issued for urogynaecological mesh manufactured by C.R. Bard”
A Medical Device Alert has been issued on C.R. Bard removing all vaginal mesh for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) from the market.
Published 7 March 2019
We are aware C.R. Bard have decided to stop selling all vaginal (urogynaecological) mesh for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and intend to withdraw remaining supply worldwide.

“It’s important to note, there are no specific safety concerns associated with this recall and there is no need for people to have the device removed or have any extra follow-up checks.
If you have any questions about your implanted device, please speak to your implanting surgeon or clinic.

Further information
The safety and efficacy for the use of these products, and the associated surgical procedures to implant them, has not changed.
This product withdrawal only affects Bard’s urogynaecological mesh products, this withdrawal will not create a supply issue.
We encourage anyone, patient, carer or healthcare professional, who is aware of a complication or adverse event associated with a medical device, to report to us via the Yellow Card scheme.
MHRA have issued a Medical Device Alert.

For our media statement and further information, please contact


Leading manufacturer exits vaginal mesh market 
Simon Bowers   March 8, 2019
One of the biggest manufacturers of vaginal mesh implants, C.R. Bard, is ending all production and marketing of the controversial products after years of campaigning by women around the world.
Campaigners applauded the decision but queried why it had not been made sooner. Bard halted the use of certain mesh products in the United States almost seven years ago amid concerns raised by women and regulators.
Since then, Bard has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and damages in the U.S. to women who said they were harmed by mesh. At the same time, the company continued selling mesh outside the U.S., where different laws meant the threat of costly lawsuits was lower.
Bard’s decision to shut down its remaining mesh business comes three months after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ Implant Files investigation revealed how light-touch regulation has made Europe a honeypot for firms marketing little-tested medical devices.Despite widespread warnings about the safety of mesh, Bard’s parent company Becton Dickinson insisted its decision to exit all markets was “a business decision and not a safety concern,” as was the partial retreat from the U.S. in 2012.
In a statement to ICIJ, a spokesman for Becton Dickinson said: “Yesterday [March 7], BD announced our decision to discontinue the manufacture and sale of [vaginal mesh] products in all remaining markets worldwide, so we no longer sell these products in any market.”
He added: “While thousands of women over many years have benefited from the safe use of these products, we have decided to stop production … to focus on other strategic priorities.”
For years, campaign groups in Europe and elsewhere have raised concerns about the safety of vaginal mesh, which is used as a treatment for urinary incontinence or organ prolapse. Mesh products were marketed as a less invasive alternative to surgery.
Campaigners point out that mesh has left large numbers of women with chronic pain and other debilitating symptoms.
Kath Sansom, founder of UK-based campaign group Sling The Mesh, said: “The decision is being celebrated by campaigners but the news is tinged with sadness, knowing how many healthy women have had their lives shattered, all because they trusted they were having a simple fix.”
In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a report saying that patient harm caused by mesh was “not rare.” In January the following year, it ordered several leading manufacturers, including Bard, to carry out new studies because it was “concerned with the potential safety risks.”
Instead of carrying out those studies, Bard withdrew its Avaulta mesh from the U.S. market. At the time, almost 90 percent of mesh manufacturers discontinued their products in the United States or changed the product’s indication.
Bard and other manufacturers who chose in 2012 to withdraw products in the United States continued to market them in Europe and elsewhere.
Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University in the UK, said: “Failing products and an unwillingness to develop evidence of safety underpins the vast majority of medical device withdrawals.” He predicted other manufacturers are likely to follow Bard’s lead and withdraw from mesh products.
Heneghan said that growing safety concerns around mesh meant governments should require doctors to follow up with all women with these devices.
Kate Kristmundsson, from Lolland in Denmark, was implanted with Bard mesh product Avaulta Plus in February 2012 and since then has been in pain every day. She told ICIJ’s Danish media partners DR that she had complained to Bard, but the company refused to help, partly because she had not sent them the mesh, some of which was still in her body.
Asked about Bard’s decision to continue marketing mesh outside the United States after 2012, Kristmundsson said: “I can’t believe it. I simply do not understand why there is no one who could have stopped it. It’s deeply shocking.”
A Becton Dickinson spokesman said: “Business decisions can vary region to region depending on current market conditions in that region. This can result in a company deciding to introduce and/or discontinue products at different times in different regions of the world.”
The Implant Files was a collaborative investigation involving more than 250 journalists at different media organizations around the world.
It was inspired by Dutch journalist Jet Schouten. In 2014, using secret filming, Schouten set out to prove how easy it was to get a license to market a medical device in Europe. She took the plastic net packaging from mandarin oranges and attempted to pass it off as surgical-grade mesh.

To accompany the plastic netting, Schouten produced a bogus technical file, full of deliberate design flaws. With documentary-making colleagues from Avotros, she then filmed certification firms, known as notified bodies, discussing her work. None of them spotted any concerns.