As many of you know I follow a lot of the internet chatter relating to the chemical scam being perpetrated by David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz, ESS and their co-conspirators. I have noticed that David, Tom and Larry have taken to the internet to promulgate their lies about the solvent, and defame those that have uncovered their fraud. This is the standard modus operandi of their scam. They claim that the California Department of Corporations is corrupt, they claim that the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office is corrupt, they claim that the IRS and United States Attorney’s Office is corrupt, they claim that the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office is corrupt, they claim that they Texas State Securities Board is corrupt, they claim that Petro-Sog is corrupt, they claim that the Utah Partners are corrupt, and now they claim that Freestone is corrupt. Are we beginning to see a pattern develop?
(Personal Note: I will not give David, Tom and Larry another forum (aka this Blog) to spew their misrepresentations and lies, but I want to acknowledge some of the recent information they have been posting on the internet, and on certain government documents. That said, out of respect to those that have been damaged by this scam I will not publish links to their posts unless they are published by the parties they have defamed.)
Mr. Larry Shultz filed a certain document with a government agency under penalty of federal criminal violations if misstatements or omissions of facts are contained within the government document (“Government Document”). Mr. Shultz signed the Government Document and filed it of record so he can’t retract it. In the Government Document he claims that Freestone is corrupt. (Remember that pattern I mentioned above?) In the Government Document he claims that he (Shultz) is now a “whistleblower” because of the amended lawsuit that Freestone recently filed against him, David, and Tom. (The amended complaint shows additional securities violations perpetrated by Shultz.) Shultz also states that he wants his day in court to clear his name. He claims that rights were given to Freestone by himself, David and Tom, and that they eventually took away those rights from Freestone. He claims that the chemical is “non-toxic” and safe, and that it can be used for EOR (pumped into the ground to extract oil). He also claims that Freestone let “billion dollar rights” slip away.
1) To begin, I can’t imagine that their attorney (Neil Evans) advised Larry Shultz to file this Government Document that outlined their potential argument/strategy in the Civil Case. More importantly I am sure that their attorney knows that judges do not appreciate defendants and plaintiffs trying to argue the merits of a lawsuit outside their courtrooms. According to my attorney, the defamation that occurred in the Government Document is also very much frowned upon by the Courts (to say the least). In the Government Document, Shultz claims that he is some kind of “whistleblower”, and that he is using that as a pretext to defame Freestone and its management. This is the same tactic David and Tom have used against government agencies that have uncovered their massive fraud. They claim that these government agencies are corrupt or have corrupt officials working for them. They claim that the multiple government agencies and the companies that have indicted/sued them are involved with a vast conspiracy against them.
2) Mr. Shultz also stated that he wants his day in court to clear his name. Thus, I ask you, Mr. Shultz, why do you keep trying to get the Civil Case dismissed on claims that jurisdiction does not exist? Why haven’t you answered the lawsuit? Your actions speak louder than your words.
3) Next, Larry Shultz claims that he gave Freestone certain “rights” and then took those “rights” away because Freestone didn’t fulfill some obligation. Let’s see, you cannot pump toxic, chlorinated chemicals into the ground (EOR) so that is a “right” that didn’t exist in the first place. More importantly, who wants to own rights to a toxic chemical? If these “rights” are so precious and you have the ability to grant them or take them away, and you truly care about the company that is suing you, then why are you taking rights away from them? In one breath you say that you are trying to help and protect this company, but in the next breath you say that you took rights away from the company and you won’t give them back unless new management renegotiates with you! This makes no sense, unless you want to take away these fictitious “rights” as an excuse to sell them to another party in order to continue the con. This seems to be what they did to ESS investors, because the ESS “rights” seem to overlap with Freestone “rights”. Hmmmm. I am beginning to see another pattern develop.
4) If you are going to continue the claim under penalty of federal criminal violation (which has been refuted by multiple scientists at various state agencies and private companies) that your chemical is non-toxic and that it works, then produce your “bona fide” chemists willing to vouch for it. I didn’t see an expert witness with a chemistry background listed on the motion in the Criminal Case. I only saw an introducer and an investor that have a vested interest in the toxic chemical. If your chemical is so amazing then why don’t you take the chemical to Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, etc.? In the Civil Case Freestone states they wish to rescind the Agreement you signed with them. Forgive my ignorance, but doesn’t that mean you can get all your “rights” back? As is the case with most ESS investors I don’t think Freestone or anyone wants your “rights”. The current actions of David, Tom and Larry don’t make any sense unless it was a scam to begin with.
**Criminal Case Update**
The Criminal Case has been postponed until February 22, 2011. The Government agreed to give Feuerborn and Jennings one last continuance with their agreement that they would not request any more continuances in this case.
-ESS Investor
No comments:
Post a Comment