Legal Threats from Stephen Updegraff

Stephen Updegraff hired David Jackson, the Secretary of the Democratic Party in Manatee County Florida to falsely pose as an attorney in the State of Washington and perform actions with the goal of shutting this web site down.  Here are some documents that have information about David Jackson.

  1. Manatee County Democrats (shows David Jackson’s same telephone number of 941-962-2981, which he also used when corresponding with
  2. R. DAVID JACKSON, P.O. Box 20131, BRADENTON FL 34204-0131 – a Trademark Correspondent

This web site owner utilizes to protect himself from questionable persons like Stephen Updegraff and David Clark.  Stephen had apparently given David Jackson the task of uncovering this web site owner’s identity.  David carried out that task by falsely pretending to be an attorney in the State of Washington, and convincing to give up the identify of the owner of this web site.

David Jackson contacted and provided a return e-mail address of   The web site contained  an advertisement for a law firm supposedly owned by David Jackson in Gig Harbor, Washington.  The web site was active until March 10, 2012 — one day after David Jackson bamboozled into giving up this web site owner’s identity.  As soon as David Jackson succeeded in bamboozling, he shut down his web site at to cover his tracks.  In the process of preparing a complaint against David Jackson to the State Bar of Washington for tortuous interference with a contract, this web site owner discovered that not only is David Jackson’s name is not in the Washington State Bar’s database of attorneys, it is not in the Florida State Bar’s database under the name of David Jackson.


Subject: DBP Legal Dispute
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:45:51 -0700
DBP Legal Dispute
Claim ID: 605360
Requestor First Name: R. David
Requestor Last Name: Jackson
Requestor Firm: R. David Jackson, P.A.
Requestor Company: Updegraff Vision; Dr. Stephen Updegraff
Alleged URL:
Requestor Email:
Requestor Phone: 941-962-2981
Requestor Fax:
Complaint Nature: Defamation
Federal trademark registration number: Serial No. 85216723
Additional Information:

To Whom It May Concern:

My firm represents Dr. Stephen Updegraff and Updegraff Vision. It has been brought to our attention that your company, Domains by Proxy, is protecting the identity of an individual or group who is controlling a website under the domain name of “,” which is in no way affiliated with Dr. Updegraff or his practice.

Please be aware that the website contains a considerable amount of information which is false, libelous, and/or defamatory to my client.

This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Alleges that on my client’s website’s homepage that he “claims to have performed over 30,000 ‘successful’ refractive procedures, including LASIK.”    There is no information on my client’s website stating how many surgeries have been performed by my client.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  See the archived page from Stephen Updegraff’s web site in which he claims to have performed over 40,000 surgeries.

2. Alleges that lately Dr. Updegraff “is advertising ‘lens implant’ surgery as an alternative to LASIK.” My client does very limited advertising of “lens implant” surgery and does not advertise it as an alternative to LASIK.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  See the archived page from Stephen Updegraff’s web site in which he advertises lens implants as an alternative to LASIK.  Here’s a more recent web page from Stephen Updegraff’s web site showing that he advertises lens implants as an alternative to LASIK.  Here’s a recent TV advertisement that Stephen Updegraff uploaded to YouTube.

3. Dedicates a page to “Updegraff Malpractice.”

EDITOR’S NOTE:  We will publish full copies of medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Stephen Updegraff not only on this site, but on other sites as well.  There’s an old proverb that is apparently unknown to Stephen Updegraff — it is “let sleeping dogs lie”.

4. Makes several unfounded allegations under the Updegraff Vision LASIK Ads page of the website regarding my client’s advertising campaigns when in fact my client does not currently have any television commercials and none of my client’s radio commercials make any reference to LASIK as a means for saving money.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  What is the definition of “current” according to David Jackson?  Does this mean that Stephen Updegraff didn’t play one of his ridiculous advertisements in the last 10 minutes?  If you just have to listen to one of Stephen Updegraff’s crass jingoistic advertisements, here’s an old one from his web site that has been archived on the Wayback Time Machine.

5. Alleges that my client advertises the Visian ICL, when in fact my client does not advertise any ICLs.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  See the archived page from Stephen Updegraff’s web site in which he advertises Visian ICLs.

6. Dedicates a page to Dr. Mark Strosser who is no longer employed by my client.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  See a current page from Stephen Updegraff’s web site in which he advertises the services of Dr. Mark Strosser. 

In addition, there are several incorrect statements regarding LASIK procedures, in general, as well as several opinions that my client strongly disagrees with on the website. While we certainly recognize that the group or the individual behind this website has the right to state opinions, we do not and will not accept them using my client’s name in furtherance of their cause.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Stephen Updegraff’s former business partner, Glenn Hagele, thought he would try filing  SLAPP lawsuits against LASIK patients in Sacramento Superior Court and Wake County Court in North Carolina.  All it got him was a $29,982 fine in Sacramento Superior Court and a loss in North Carolina that forced him into bankruptcy.  Fortunately, there is a nice anti-SLAPP statute that can be employed against Stephen Updegraff in the event that he decides to engage in “monkey-see-monkey-do”.

Finally, the use of the domain name, as well as various other content on this website, infringes upon my client’s United States Trademark for “Updegraff Lasik Vision.” This mark was published for opposition by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 13, 2011, under Serial No. 85216723. Since no timely opposition was filed, it is anticipated that the registration for this mark will issue to my client in the next few weeks.

Accordingly, the website will soon be in violation of my client’s registered federal trademark.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  David Jackson filed an application for UPDEGRAFF LASIK VISION, not UpdegraffLasik.   In spite of David Jackson registering the wrong service mark that would be necessary to claim, I think I may just “give” it to Stephen Updegraff as  “gift”.  That creates one little problem for me — which is that I need a new domain name.   If I give this domain name to Stephen Updegraff, I think I’ll use to give this web site less of a local focus in Tampa, and a greater national focus.

On second thought, I’ll keep AND make Stephen Updegraff the star of

This is a perfect example of a why LASIK surgeons should not outsource their marketing needs to people like David Jackson.  On average, attorneys “lose” 50% of the time and “win” 50% of the time they engage in legal activity.  However, when attorney’s “lose” they still “win” just as long as they get paid.  Sometimes when the attorney “wins”, the client still loses.  In this case, Stephen Updegraff just got more pages on his web site.

Based on the foregoing, I strongly encourage you to discontinue your relationship with the individual or group behind the website [EDITOR’S NOTE:  This is known as “tortuous interference with a contract” attorneys generally know that they can get sued for doing this, but people like David Jackson think they can do this without suffering any consequences] and to notify them of the concerns raised in this claim. Further, I would request that you provide me with the contact information of the individual or group responsible for this website so I can follow up with them to make certain they take the appropriate steps in this regard.

Thank you for your prompt assistance in resolving this matter. We look forward to your response.

R. David Jackson