Are Your Gullible? Send Money for Free Test!

Remember Simon Brodie, the tax cheat who started the "Pet Sharing" business I blogged about a while back?

Yes, this is the same fellow who claimed to have made a hypoallergenic cat he was only too ready to sell to anyone gullible enough to shell out $4,000 to $7,000 (prices varied).

And no, Mr. Brodie had no scientific evidence he was willing to producer to support either his hypoallergenic claims or his genetic research and breeding program.

One reason such evidence might not have been forthcoming is that Mr. Brodie may have been simply reselling and re-branding cats bred by others.

Nature magazine suggests Mr. Brodie's "hypoallergenic cat" may, in fact, be nothing more than recycled F1 Savannah Cats, which are simply commercially-available first-generation crosses between a Serval and a domestic cat.

Regardless, it seems Mr. Brodies' cat scheme did not pay too well and he was evicted from his San Diego loft for failure to pay rent.

Whoops!

Undaunted, Mr. Brodie put out a press releases claiming he had created a new company, called "Cyntegra," that was ready to manufacture a revolutionary new biological test for canine and avian flu.

A test for canine flu? Who needs that?

Oh, never mind -- questions like that just get in the way of the story.

After putting out his press release, Mr. Brodie then claimed he was having trouble selling his test to veterinarians because of restraint of trade actions taken by Idexx (a real pet diagnostics company).

There was only one small problem with Mr. Brodie's story: For Idexx to be engaged in restraint of trade, Mr. Brodie would need to actually have a product he could credibly claim he was trying to sell. But, as the the court found in summary judgment against Mr. Brodie:

The evidence shows that Plaintiff's (Cyntegra) sole employee and founder, Brodie, has little background or experience in the market of molecular diagnostic testing. Brodie is unaware of the difference between certain common diagnostic testing techniques, in addition, Brodie testified at deposition that he has never taken a course of a technical or scientific nature, or any courses that focus on management or business. The evidence shows that any steps Plaintiff took to engage in the proposed business were only preliminary or exploratory in nature. . . In addition, Brodie never developed a formal business plan, Plaintiff had no other employees besides its founder Brodie, Plaintiff never acquired a laboratory or employed a laboratory manager, Plaintiff never contacted an investment bank or venture capital firm to raise capital and Plaintiff never obtained a license to sell the canine influenza test, one of the few products it purported to sell. Furthermore, despite claiming to have a patent pending for its veterinary diagnostic system, aside from Brodie's declaration, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any other evidence regarding the patent."

Ouch! Adding injury to insult, the court ordered Mr. Brodie to pay over $7,000 in court costs.

Believe it or not, Mr. Brodie has not taken complete defeat lying down. In fact, he has appealed the lower court's decision to the Ninth Circuit.

We can only offer him the best of luck there.