Statute of Limitations???

I assume by now you have all read my blog post entitled “Interior Decorating”.  In that blog post I stated that David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings signed a stipulation admitting that they had paid an interior decorating company $20,660.67 out of an “EcoLogic” bank account.  Thus, admitting they created a bank account called EcoLogic to fool investors into thinking that money was going to a real manufacturing company called Eco-Logic.   

In most states the statue of limitations on fraud begins at the time of the discovery of that fraud.  Thus, this stipulation is direct evidence that (i) they created a bogus bank account to fool investors, and (ii) used investor money outside the scope of their use of proceeds.  This stipulation provides a date from which the statue of limitations can begin anew, because until that stipulation was filed we only had allegations of fraud and had no direct and irrefutable proof that fraud occurred.  This is great news for the potential ESS lawsuit against Feuerborn and Jennings!

Let’s think for a second why David and Tom might claim they needed a bank account with a name deceptively similar to the real manufacturing company.  They might argue that they were building part of the components for the real machine, or ordering chemicals under that company name.  But why does the name of the bank account matter?  It looks to me as if they were trying to get around the use of proceeds for the money they raised.  Even if they claim they created the bogus EcoLogic account because they were doing work on the machine or ordering chemicals, then why did they pay for interior decorating from the EcoLogic account rather than from their personal accounts?  They just don’t have a rational argument.  Get excited ESS investors.  This is a big deal!

-ESS Investor