Cataclysm!!!!

Just got a HUGE tip!  Something BIG is brewing.  It involves new evidence, and both the Civil and Criminal Cases!!!!  Stay tuned!

-ESS Investor

Throw it Agsint the Wall and See if it Sticks

What do you do if you are sued for committing a massive fraud against someone, and you know you are guilty?  If you are like me then you don’t know because you aren’t a criminal!  If you are David, Tom and Larry then you have your attorney try to dismiss the case with every dismissal option allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  (Note: I consulted an attorney after I saw the latest Motion the Defendants filed in the Civil Case.)

Neil C. Evans, the legal counsel for David, Tom and Larry, filed another Motion to Dismiss entitled Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Party (12) (b) (7) ) and to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (12) (b) (1) ) (Case 3:10-cv-01349-O ; Pages 195-201).  When an attorney for a Defendant knows that the Plaintiff has a very strong case then this is a tactic to try and (i) get a case dismissed on a hope and a prayer, or (ii) delay the process because the Defendant cannot answer the lawsuit without incriminating himself/herself.  The attorney I consulted also stated that there is a special reason for Neil to stall the Civil Case that is specific to this situation.  On January 11, 2011 David and Tom will face a grand jury trial in their Criminal Fraud Case.  Neil does not want any of their fraudulent activities in the Civil Case to affect their Criminal Case.  Thus, he does not want Freestone to take any depositions that could be used against David and Tom in the Criminal Case by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

Freestone also alleges some serious securities fraud violations.  These same violations could be argued in an ESS case against David and Tom.  More importantly I think everyone that purchased stock in ESS should contact the Securities and Exchange Commission and notify them that David and Tom sold securities through lies and misrepresentations.  Tell them about the Desist and Refrain Order issued by the California Department of Corporations (they are like California’s SEC).  Or contact OSHA and notify them that David and Tom have exposed investors to hazardous chlorinated substances which are also listed in the Desist and Refrain Order during their demonstrations in complete violation with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)15 U.S.C. §2622.  You will be protected as a whistle blower.   

It still amazes me that Neil Evans needs multiple continuances in the Criminal Case, but he has all the time in the world to file motions in the Civil Case and fly to Texas for hearings.  Something here doesn't add up.   

Once Freestone responds I will give a detailed account of the Defendants’ Motion and the Plaintiff’s Response similar to the blog entry that discussed their previous Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.  If you don’t remember, the Judge denied their previous attempt to dismiss this case.  So, there might be another hearing in this matter and Neil will fly back to Texas on ESS investor’s money.  This is the type of stuff you see on American Greed. 

-ESS Investor 

Thank you Tipsters!

Wow.  I wasn’t expecting any tips to come this quickly, but alas we already have some amazing information that have come from two different sources.  *Disclaimer*: The following information came to me from an anonymous source, and it has yet to be verified by the author of this blog.

Utah Lawsuit

On the ESS website it states, “[t]he Utah project with our Utah partners is currently raising funds to construct production systems in Utah to recover hydrocarbons from tar sands and oil shale.” 

Apparently we were not told the whole story about the Utah Venture.  In the early 2000s a lawsuit was filed by the Utah partner against David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, et al. for fraud relating to the chemical scam.  This lawsuit was filed in Utah state court.  The tipster gave me the county where the lawsuit was filed.  Once I get the information from the courthouse I can post the lawsuit number and pertinent information on this blog.  It is amazing how many lawsuits have been filed against Feuerborn and Jennings that relate to the chemical scam.  It seems that they keep trying to cover them up and explain them away with lies.  I am told the Utah Lawsuit ended in a settlement agreement between all the parties.    

Asa Kilander

The tipster confirmed that Asa Kilander is the girlfriend of David Feuerborn.  He also linked me to her Facebook page which indicated that she is friends with an “S. Feuerborn” (presumably kin to David).  As far as I am concerned this is definitive proof of this alleged relationship.  The tipster also informed me that she has in depth knowledge about the chemical and the scam.  The tipster indicated that this is why she was paid by ESS.  The tipster stated that he/she recently sent this information to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.  Maybe further criminal charges can be brought against the co-conspirators in this fraud to stop it once and for all. 

ESS Lawsuit 

Lastly, the tipster informed me that there is a group of ESS investors that have hired an attorney to determine if it will be feasible to file a lawsuit against Feuerborn, Jennings, and the other co-conspirators that received money from ESS (presumably the family members and friends that I have already mentioned).  I don’t know if this will be worth it because the IRS and Freestone are already going after them, and the IRS will probably get most of the assets of David and Tom.  Maybe they can get money from the other co-conspirators that were paid by ESS and that knew about the scam all along.  When the government published the W-2 forms it gave valuable insight into the money trail and who to go after.  The depositions in the Criminal and Civil cases will also give an indication of who knew what, and when they knew it. 

Second Tipster

As I began writing this blog entry I received another “You have mail” notification.  A second tipster informed me that two federal agents were in attendance at the Freestone hearing that took place a couple of weeks ago.  The tipster did not elaborate on why they wanted to attend the hearing.  Also, the second tipster stated that the judge questioned Larry Shultz about his association with David and Tom even though it was not brought up by the Plaintiff’s (Freestone’s) attorney.  Larry responded by saying he had no affiliation with David or Tom, but only introduced Freestone to David, Tom, and their company.  I find it very interesting that the judge probed into his affiliation with them.  The judge presiding over the Civil Case was previously a U.S. Attorney.  Maybe he finds it interesting that two of the defendants are being prosecuted by his former employer (the U.S. Government)? 

It looks as if the new partner of David and Tom, Shultz, is trying to totally distance himself from the scam and possible criminal charges.  I can’t say that I blame him, but I don’t know how believable it is to think that he was totally ignorant of their scam and the chemical's toxicity.  I will be able to confirm these statements once I receive the full transcript of the hearing.      

-ESS Investor 

Tips are Appreciated (Just Words - No Cash, Thanks!)

I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving.  I created a Yahoo email for people to send anonymous tips about David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Lawrence Shultz, and anyone else that might be involved in this scam.  If you have any tips please send them to essinvestor62@yahoo.com. 

On November 22 the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a proposed order to take the deposition of Kathleen Strode.  We are not sure who she is and what her affiliation is with ESS, but we will soon find out.  This proposed order is Page ID # 545 on PACER. 

It looks like the multiple continuances are coming in handy for the Government’s case against Feuerborn and Jennings.  They are using the extra time to amass more evidence against them.  Let’s be thankful to David’s attorney for stalling.  Also, if anyone else has additional information that might help the Government’s case against Feuerborn and Jennings please email it to Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Vandevelde or Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Levin at eric.vandevelde@usdoj.gov and daniel.b.levin@usdoj.gov.   

- ESS Investor

Payday

The United States Attorney filed the “Government’s Motion to Admit Business Records Under Declarations of Custodian of Record Pursuant to 902 (11) and 803 (6)” in the Criminal Case against David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO: Document 53. Pages 234-239).  It was a busy weekend for me, because there were approximately 300 pages of exhibits attached to this Motion.  These exhibits give a clear picture of the fraud, and the extent of the fraud, that Feuerborn and Jennings perpetrated against ESS investors and others.  You won’t believe how much money went to friends, wives, decorators, cabinet manufacturers, etc.  It looks as if they used ESS money to buy items such as a Lexus and an RV as well.  I wanted to remain impartial, but I can’t help becoming extremely frustrated by the indisputable evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s office has compiled.

(Note: The personal information listed below was derived from the W-2 Forms published by the government as exhibits to the Motion.)

Let’s first look at Suzanne Jennings from Anaheim, CA.  She is the wife of Tom Jennings and for some reason she received $35,000 from ESS Environmental, Inc. in 2005 (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO: Document 53-4. Page 299).  I’d like some explanation of what she did for ESS to deserve that money.  I would also like an explanation as to why Suzanne and Tom purchased an RV that cost $62,143 with money diverted from ESS (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO: Document 53-4 and 53-5. Page 310 and Page 333 respectively).  There are also copies of checks written from “Ecologic” to Trinity Cabinetry by Tom Jennings for a new set of cabinets for their house.  If you don’t remember, Eco-Logic is the company that was purportedly building an oil sand machine.  They had ESS investors believe that they were paying the real Eco-Logic while they were actually diverting money into the fake “Ecologic” bank account they created so they could buy an RV and cabinets for their house (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO: Document 53-5. Pages 322-324).

Do you remember my blog entry that listed a company called Jewelry by Asa?  I didn’t know what the connection was.  (Note:  When I Googled the Lantana address David Feuerborn used for the "Cleansal" domain name "Jewelry by Asa" came up under the same address.)  Well, I found that connection buried within these exhibits.  Asa Kilander of Camarillo, CA was paid $28,000 dollars by ESS Environmental, Inc.  Somehow she is connected to Dave and Tom and the chemical scam (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO: Document 53-4. Page 300).  What if her “Swedish jewelry and clothing business” was a front company to hide ESS money?  What if there is hidden ESS money in Sweden?!?!  I find it odd that her website no longer exists. 

I am anxious to see the exhibits that will be filed in the Civil Case.  While the Criminal Case deals with tax evasion and tax fraud, the Civil Case deals directly with the chemical scam.  Once both cases make some more progress I think ESS investors will have a lot of information to sift through. 

-ESS Investor          

Courtroom Drama

I put a phone call in to Freestone’s office to ask if anyone from the company attended the hearing on Wednesday.  I spoke to an individual at the company that attended the hearing, and he gave me a play-by-play of what occurred.  I will keep his identity anonymous out of respect for his privacy.  I have no ill will towards their company, because they have been hurt by this scam just as all the ESS investors have been hurt.    

Usually federal court hearings are pretty bland, but I am told that this one had a little excitement.  To begin, David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings did not show up.  Neil Evans (David Feuerborn’s criminal attorney) was present as well as the new third partner, Larry Shultz. 

It sounds as if this hearing was more exciting than an episode of Law & Order.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at this hearing, because according to my source at the company Larry Shultz was thrown out of the courtroom by Judge O’Connor for speaking out of turn while in the gallery.  Now I am more inclined than ever to get a transcript of the proceedings so I can find out exactly what was said that angered the Judge.  Shultz wasn’t just warned.  He was thrown out!  Not the best first impression on a Judge that will be presiding over your case if you ask me.  I wonder if the Judge knows about the criminal charges that have been brought against Feuerborn and Jennings by the U.S. Attorney's Office.  It looks as if this guy Shultz is now completely intertwined in their chemical scam, and if he has been involved in raising money for them he might be involved in their criminal activities which include defrauding the federal government, and tax fraud.  I hope someone investigates and follows the recent money transactions.    

   

(Note: The Judge allowed Shultz to come back in to testify as a witness in the hearing.  While on the stand Shultz apologized for his outburst.  It will be interesting to see what he said on the stand, and if it conflicts with any information that is known about the chemical scam.)

After the discovery of this news I am going to order a complete transcript of the proceedings.  I will update everyone when I get it. 

-ESS Investor

Denied

“ELECTRONIC  Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reed C O’Connor: Motion Hearing held on 11/17/2010 re [10] Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Lawrence Shultz, Environmental Services and Support, Inc; Court denies this motion.  Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff – S. George Alfonso; Defense – Neil Cary Evans. (Court Reporter: Denver Roden) (No exhibits) Time in Court – 1:00 (chmb)”

I found this on PACER this morning.  It looks as if the hearing took place in Dallas, TX yesterday as scheduled and Neil C. Evans (David Feuerborn’s criminal attorney) flew from California (presumably on ESS investor money if not all of it has already been spent on exotic cars and interior decorating) to represent all the Defendants.  Wouldn’t it be cheaper to get a Texas attorney?  This is just another example of how these guys spend other people’s money without giving a flying hoot.  Oh, btw, the Defendants lost so the trial will remain in Texas.  I still find it odd that Mr. Evans has time to fly to Texas to represent the Defendants even though he is telling the judge in the Criminal Case that he needs multiple continuances, because he doesn’t have enough time to prepare David’s defense.  It would seem as if there are some inconsistencies between his claims and his actions.    

The Civil Case will remain in Texas.  I will try and obtain a transcript of the proceedings.  If there is anything of relevance I will post it on this blog.

Let’s think about this logically.  If you had invented a miracle cleaner that is truly environmentally friendly and works as represented to chemically separate oil from solids then why would you want a long and public trial with a previous partner that makes the claim that your solvent is a complete fraud.  Wouldn’t that make it difficult to find a new partner?  It makes no logical sense to continue this nonsense if you have a real product.  Maybe they are getting some bad legal advice, or they know they scammed Freestone and they are trying to hold on to what they obtained in the scam.  Also, David and Thomas are facing jail time in the Criminal Case.  How does it look to have an ongoing Civil Case making the claim that you defrauded a public company while the United States Government is alleging that you defrauded them!  If it quacks like a duck...then its a duck.  In this case, if it chirps like a jail bird then it probably is one, or at least its about to be.

 

- ESS Investor

Patent Scam

Hello blogosphere!  I have touched on today's subject in a previous blog post, but I would like to focus on the results of my recent due diligence.  David and Tom claim that the “solvent” is patent pending.  They have been making this claim since 2003.  The California Department of Corporations’ Desist and Refrain Order states, in section 4 (c), that the patent pending claim was a lie that David and Tom told to investors.  Clearly the California Department of Corporations did a search and investigation into the issue and discovered that neither the “solvent” nor the process was not patent pending. Freestone also claims that David and Tom made this same misrepresentation. 

Thus, I decided to conduct a patent search under the name “David Feuerborn”.  Google has a great tool for searching the patent records.  The only thing that shows up is a patent for a needle safety shield.  Why haven’t David and Tom filed a patent application?  I think I articulated that point very well in my previous blog post:

“The patent pending claim was a complete lie.  If Feuerborn patented the solvent then the toxicity would be revealed.   Also, I was told it was patent pending in the early 2000s and there is still nothing posted on the USPTO website.  The California Department of Corporations Desist and Refrain Order also states that this was a lie told to investors.  According to the Civil Case Complaint this same lie was told to Freestone by David Feuerborn.  Personally, I am shocked at the audacity of Feuerborn, Jennings and Shultz by perpetuating this lie as recently as last year!” 

- ESS Investor

Bench Warrant Issued for David Feuerborn

This blog post will have nothing to do with the chemical scam perpetrated by David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz and others, but instead I will focus on some past legal documentation I found during an internet search on David Feuerborn.  While this case has no direct connection with the chemical scam, it does give some insight into the behavior of David.  The subsequent events that occurred after the divorce might have a direct connection with his legal battles on the chemical scam.       

I discovered a very messy divorce proceeding and child custody battle.  It looks as if a bench warrant was issued due to his contempt of court:

5/28/2003

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST DAVID JOHN FEUERBORN FILED BY COUNTY OF VENTURA

BENCH WARRANT ISSUED

 

According to this documentation he had some cash flow issues that related to his payment of child support.  I wonder if that is why he went on the road to Louisiana and other states in order to raise money with the chemical scam.  Maybe these seemingly unrelated events are very much related.

Maybe David didn’t want to file a tax return so that he looked destitute and would not have to pay child support. 

It looks as if David has always had money issues, and instead of making money through hard work and a normal job he decided to take the easy way out and use his parlor tricks to scam investors into investing into the chemical scam.  Very interesting how this is all finally coming together.  

- ESS Investor

Arthur Mark Feuerborn

Has anyone ever noticed that when you Google the name "David Feuerborn" a paid advertisement comes up for the Law Offices of Arthur Mark Feuerborn?  There is also a disclaimer on his website that states, "Arthur Feuerborn has been dismissed from all actions involving ESS Environmental and related entities as he has not been involved in those companies, except as a nominal shareholder in the two entities.  He has had no involvement in the management, direction, control, or operations of any ESS-related entity nor has he received compensation or benefit" (Disclaimer LInk).

We are assuming Mark is the brother of David.  They look strikingly similar.  According to the District Attorney's office of Ventura County Arthur is mentioned as one of the parties that was originally indicted in Louisiana for racketeering, securities fraud, and criminal conspiracy.  

It would seem as if he is totally distancing himself from the chemical scam at this point in time.  Why else would he need that disclaimer on his Website?  

Also, it doesn't look as if he is representing his brother in the Criminal Case.      

- ESS Investor

Death and Taxes

“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” – Benjamin Franklin

How true this quote must ring to David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.  I have been asked why the United States would indict David and Tom for tax fraud rather than indict them for their chemical fraud scheme.  If you talk to David and Tom I am sure you will hear responses such as, “these are trumped up charges” and, “they are only going after us on tax fraud because they can’t prove our chemical business was a scam.”  One should ignore those biased responses.

Instead it is well known that tax fraud is very easy to prove.  Take for instance the criminal case that brought down the infamous mobster Alphonse Gabriel “Al” Capone.  Al Capone was a ruthless gangster, but the tax evasion charges are what finally put him away for good.  The tax fraud might be the best way for ESS investors to finally get justice.  So the government will need to prove the following in the Criminal Case against David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings:

1.        Did David file a tax return in the past five years?  If he did it should be on file with the IRS.  If he didn’t then it won’t be on file.  That is very easy for the Government to prove.  I don’t think the excuse “it got lost in the mail” will work this time.

2.       Did Thomas Jennings file his tax returns incorrectly over the past five years?  All the Government needs to show is that he misstated his income based on the forensic accounting of their bank accounts. 

3.       Did Feuerborn and Jennings open a bank account with the name “Ecologic”?  (This is spelled deceivingly similar to a company that built a machine that is currently who-knows-where.  The real company is spelled “Eco-Logic” with a hyphen.)  The government is alleging that they created this “bogus” bank account in order to divert money into their personal accounts without investor knowledge. 

4.          Did Dave and Tom ask their CFO to classify the ESS money paid to them as “loans” so they wouldn’t have to record it as regular income?  I am sure they have sworn testimony of the CFO to validate this allegation.  The IRS doesn’t take kindly to loans that have no term or interest rate.

5.       Did Tom pay for interior decorating at Interiors by KC, Inc. with investor money?  That should be easy to prove.

6.       Did Dave by motorcycles and/or cars at Hahm Motorsports with investor money?  That should be easy to prove.  (Grand Jury Indictment, Page 1-25; Case: CR 10-00346)

Do you see how easy it is to prove tax fraud?

The U.S. Attorney had indicted them for tax fraud, but I am sure he will use a broad brush to paint a picture that includes the chemical fraud as well.  The U.S. Attorney has already used the Civil Case in his motions, and he can continue to use it.  He can also use the sworn testimony and additional discovery gathered in the Civil Case.  Additionally, one has to ask if they paid taxes on the money paid to them by Freestone.  I doubt it.  This shows a continued effort to defraud the U.S. Government.      

Thus, there is little gray area when it comes to tax fraud.  If convicted, one might assume that they will go back to their chemical scam after they get out of prison because that is all they know.  Here is my analysis of that scenario.  If Dave and Tom go to prison they are looking at terms of up to 20-30 years.  If they get the minimum sentence or a decreased sentence and they return to their chemical scam then the Civil Case might be the answer.  Freestone can ask certain questions in their interrogatories and discovery portion of the litigation that can prove that criminal acts took place and even bring the new guy, Larry Shultz, into the mix.  If they try to perpetrate the chemical scam again, then the U.S. Attorney can go after another indictment based on the sworn testimony gathered in the Civil Case.  This may happen anyway if enough evidence is amassed.  Only time will tell.   

- ESS Investor 

Arrogance is Bliss

I've decided to use this blog post to analyze the mindset of David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings as it relates to the chemical scam and the problems they have encountered in the 20+ years they have been at it. 

Arrogance:

I can attest that David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings are extremely arrogant individuals.  Take for instance Dave’s arrogance towards the Internal Revenue Agency.  He hasn’t filed a tax return in the last 5 years and he thinks he can get away with it!  That’s arrogance. 

Dave and Tom know there are hazardous chlorinated chemicals in their “solvent” yet they think they can forge Material Data Safety Sheets and other government regulated documentation so that everyone thinks it’s as safe as water.  This is a federal offense!  That’s arrogance. 

Dave and Tom also get people to front for them so that due diligence research doesn’t reveal their identities and past scams.  In Louisiana they used paid actors to pitch the solvent to would-be investors, and they used an individual named Larry Shultz to sell the “solvent” to Freestone.  That’s arrogance.

They set up bogus bank accounts at Wells Fargo with names almost identical to the vendors building their “machines” so they could funnel money to their personal bank accounts and investors would think the money was going to the machine manufacturers.  That’s arrogance. 

They are still trying to sell their “solvent” under different names and different corporations even though they have been criminally indicted by the state of Louisiana, criminally indicted by the U.S. Federal Government, successfully sued by Petro-Sog, civilly sued by Freestone Resources (ongoing), and issued a Desist and Refrain order from selling securities by both Texas and California.  That’s arrogance. 

How do they get away with it?:

If you talk to Dave and Tom then you hear the excuse that they have been through all this trouble because “people are trying to steal their ‘solvent’”, or that “people are just jealous of their miracle cleaner.”  Let’s take a look at that argument:

Petro-Sog only wanted to recover money that they paid to Feuerborn when they found out that Feuerborn had made multiple misrepresentations about the chemical and its toxicity.  They wanted nothing to do with the “solvent” when they discovered it had carcinogenic, chlorinated chemicals contained in it. 

Freestone just wants to recover their stock and money that they paid to Feuerborn, Jennings, Shultz and Environmental Services and Support, Inc.  They are asking for a rescission of their Agreement because they made the same discoveries made by Petro-Sog, which indicates that they want nothing to do with this hazardous “solvent” either. 

Then one must ask if the Internal Revenue Service, the state of Louisiana, the California Department of Corporations or the Texas Securities Commission wanted to steal their “solvent”.  This is the most laughable of them all.  I know Dave and Tom blame their Louisiana prosecution on corrupt local officials, but the fact still remains that many investors lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on this scam.  It sounds to me as if they people they scammed were just well connected.  None of the documentation or disclosures they made to Louisiana investors discussed the carcinogenic chemicals that are contained within the “solvent”.  

These guys think they are above the law.  They don’t care if people get hurt because they don’t make the proper disclosures about their “solvent's" toxicity.  The only thing on the minds of Feuerborn and Jennings is how they can make some quick cash without working for it.  It looks as if the chickens are finally coming home to roost.      

- ESS Investor

The Eyes of Texas are Upon You

It looks as if we have some life in the Civil Case.  Judge Reed O’connor has ordered both parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) to appear for a hearing on November 17, 2010 to hear verbal arguments on the jurisdiction challenge submitted by Neil Evans, the attorney for David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz, and Environmental Services and Support, Inc. (“Defendants”). 

On November 17^th Freestone will argue that the Defendants had the minimal contact needed in the state of Texas to keep the jurisdiction in the Northern District Court in Texas.  According to my research, minimal contact is usually all one needs to prove in order to keep the original jurisdiction in which the complaint was originally filed.  According to Freestone’s response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants had minimal contact with Texas in that they originally solicited a Freestone consultant and resident of Texas while he was in Texas, made multiple phone calls to Freestone’s Texas office, sent multiple emails to Freestone’s Texas office, visited Freestone’s office in Texas on multiple occasions where they gave misrepresentations during demonstrations of the solvent, a demonstration trip in Houston, and the Petro-Sog case indicating that at least one of the Defendants (David Feuerborn) has previously directed this scam at the state of Texas.

Neil Evans, the attorney for Feuerborn in the Criminal Case, argued that he didn’t have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his client, and requested a continuance multiple times in the Criminal Case.  Now, how are we supposed to believe that he has time to travel to Texas to represent all of the Defendants in the Civil Case?  What are the odds that he will come up with some obtuse reason to postpone the jurisdiction hearing in the Civil Case?  But then again the Judge must to approve his reason before he will allow the hearing to be postponed.  I have a feeling that Judge O’connor will not have a lot of patience for these guys if they attempt delay tactics when he hears about their criminal indictment. 

So now the Defendants’ attorney is going to fly back and forth between California and Texas on ESS investors’ funds.  This is the biggest travesty of them all.  On a phone conference with ESS investors David Feuerborn claimed he was looking for a joint venture partner, and that construction was underway on another machine.  Instead, it looks like any new money that might come into this venture will be spent on defending David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.    

Personally, I would like both cases to move forward as quickly as possible.  My goal is to collect any and all evidence in the Criminal Case and Civil Case that proves that Feuerborn and Jennings used fraud in their chemical scam in the hopes that an ESS class action can be put together.  If there is evidence that criminal actions have occurred then the authorities might even get involved and stop them once and for all!  No one else needs to get hurt by these guys and their scam. 

-          ESS Investor    

Lawrence Shultz

I decided to dedicate this blog entry to Lawrence Shultz.  According to some documentation I have discovered he self identifies as Larry Shultz.

I was very interested in doing some due diligence on Mr. Shultz, because he was not around when I was introduced to ESS.  He first appeared in the Civil Case as a third partner to Thomas Jennings and David Feuerborn.   From reading the documentation on PACER (mostly email exhibits) it looks as if most of the sales job to Freestone was done by Mr. Shultz.  I am not sure if this was a tactic to hide the identities of Feuerborn and Jennings, but one can assume that his role was a front man in order to mask their previous dealings.

I have found quite a bit of information on Larry Shultz on the internet that relates directly to the chemical, as well as information of his dealings with other companies.  To begin I will focus on his chemical blogging.  A simple search of tar sands and Larry Shultz was conducted in Google to find the following:

Tar Sand Blogging:

Larry Shultz commented on a Blog written by Susan Casey.  He uses his real name in the "Comment Section" of the Blog to discuss R6000.  He makes all sorts of environmental claims about the product that resemble the rhetoric of Feuerborn and Jennings during ESS.  He also gives his email address on the Blog as "larry411@gmail.com".  (Note: "Larry411" is the handle that the current demonstration videos are listed under on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Larry411)

Other Companies:

According to LinkedIn Mr. Shultz is currently an owner of a company called Larson Tech Ventures.  I can't really find too much information on Larsen Tech so I assume it is a shell company.  It could be the new company they are operating under for Cleansal.  (Note:  A cached version of Larry's LinkedIn page lists him as a Director at Freestone.  It goes on to state that he, "[w]rote EncapSol business plan and created company's Energy Bond equipment financing business model."  I am not sure what any of that means, but I haven't been able to find any corporate documentation issued by Freestone that supports his claim that he is, or ever was, a Director with the company.)  I plan on calling Freestone this week to ask if (a) Mr. Shultz was ever an employee or Director of the company, and (b) if they can disclose the beneficial owners of the stock in the ESS deal.  I will post my findings after that discussion. 

CryoTherm and Encore Clean Energy:

I found information on a company called Cryotherm where it states that Lawrence Mitchell Shultz is a Director.  This small bio is listed on Bloomberg Businessweek.  After reading this information I did a simple search including Mr. Shultz's name on these two companies.  Here are some links I found.

http://www.secinfo.com/dUqRq.3ed.htm
This link provides a more detailed bio on Larry Shultz and it also lists what I am assuming is a sibling or wife named Sally J. Shultz.   (Note: The bio claims that Sally went to UCLA School of Law, but I have searched the state bar of California and I could not find any record that she is a licensed attorney in the state of California.)  I cross referenced her name with the Civil Case and discovered a document pertaining to Larry Shultz that listed an individual named Sally Masserat.  This document was a Proof of Service Document.  At the bottom of this document it states, "Sally Masserat a.k.a Monica Ramirez first identified herself as Defendant's sister, then claimed to be his live-in maid when I advised her as to the nature of the documents" (Civil Case, Page 84).  I have to assume this is the same Sally.  I am not sure if she is further involved in the chemical business, but according to the SEC documentation she has worked with Mr. Shultz before.

Here is a copy of the Encore Clean Energy 13D filed on behalf of Mr. Shultz.

*UPDATE*

It looks like Mr. Shultz has had a run in with the SEC!  Check out this link: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/s72804/s72804-18.htm

Happy Election day!  Do your civic duty and go vote!

-ESS Investor

Parlor Tricks

Happy Monday everyone!  I decided to devote this blog entry to explaining how David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings and Larry Shultz have been so successful at this con.   I deem it a successful con because according to the Criminal Case they have raised a substantial sum of money with this "chemical".

To begin, Feuerborn discovered one very hazardous and chlorinated chemical has the ability to separate hydrocarbons from solids.  We derive this information based on the California Department of Corporations Desist and Refrain Order and the Petro-Sog Case.  We have to assume that this discovery was made in the early 1990s according to the information discovered in the Petro-Sog Case.   Due to the extreme toxicity of the chemical, and the fact that only one chemical comprised Feuerborn's "solvent", it was necessary to create some mystique and, most importantly, fake documentation.

So What is the Sales Pitch?:

When I purchased ESS stock I was told that there was a special blending method and a multitude of chemicals were used to create R6000 (the name of the solvent when it was sold to ESS investors).  From my discussions with other ESS investors I have been apprised of stories that they tell to non-chemists.  These stories range from shocking the chemical in order to change its polarity to the utilization of a special "black box" that blends the chemicals in a certain order to remove toxicity.  This is all garbage.  While I am a Bio-Engineer, I have a background in rudimentary chemistry.  I can tell you that shocking an organic substance will not change its polarity and blending multiple organic chemicals together will not make a toxic chemical non-toxic.  If this had been Feuerborn's sales pitch when I purchased the ESS stock I would have walked out of the room immediately.  (I almost did walk out of the room because Tom was so arrogant at the meeting.)  If the two organic chemicals are miscible in one another then they might alter the main chemical's properties (flash point, boiling point, etc.), but that is it.

Feuerborn and Jennings also boasted that the chemical passed an aquatic toxicity test.  This is my favorite con of them all.  Let's assume that they really used R6000 in the test.  (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even use it to conduct the test.)  If you have a toxic chemical that is not soluble in water and has a specific gravity that is heavier than water then it can pass this misleading test.  The chemical will rest on the bottom of the fish tank and the fish are not exposed to the chemical's toxicity.   This doesn't mean that the chemical is non-toxic.  Personally I think this was a forged test, but even if it wasn't there is a way that a toxic chemical can successfully pass the aquatic minnow test.

I believe Feuerborn began learning from his mistakes and altered the con accordingly.  In the Petro-Sog Case one of David's partners told a Petro-Sog employee what was in the "solvent".   Thus, Petro-Sog sued Feuerborn because it is extremely toxic stuff.   They have learned that no matter how deep a company gets involved with them that they cannot disclose the chemical's makeup, because the fraud will be immediately uncovered.  Also, how would the EPA allow a machine to operate anywhere in the U.S. if there is a risk that carcinogenic chemicals will escape into the atmosphere. 

Next, when I purchased my ESS stock I was told that the solvent was patent pending.  Others have been told that it's held in a trade secret.  The patent pending claim was a complete lie.  If Feuerborn patented the solvent then the toxicity would be revealed.   Also, I was told it was patent pending in the early 2000s and  there is still nothing posted on the USPTO website.  The California Department of Corporations Desist and Refrain Order also states that this was a lie told to investors.  According to the Civil Case Complaint this same lie was told to Freestone by David Feuerborn.  Personally, I am shocked at the audacity of Feuerborn, Jennings and Shultz by perpetuating this lie as recently as last year!

That's all for today folks.  I will be back with more information soon!

-ESS Investor