This morning I woke up to find SIX new motions in the Criminal Case. These documents include (i) Neil Evans’ claims that the prosecutor misrepresented facts (essentially calling the Assistant U.S. Attorney a liar), (ii) a request to call Larry Shultz as an “expert witness” (remember this was the person that got kicked out of the Civil Case Hearing in November, and the same individual Freestone is suing for fraud relating to the solvent), and (iii) an attempt to enter evidence on the “effectiveness” of their bogus chemical. (Are they forgetting that this is a case about tax fraud and fake bank accounts?)
I have a feeling that they received some earnest money for a deal that they are trying to close with the company mentioned by my anonymous source. They are now using that money to bring their attorneys back to life.
Neil’s Motions:
Neil finally made a visit to the IRS offices in Camarillo on January 6, 2011. He had the ability to make this visit at the time of the indictment, but he decided to wait until the 11th hour in order to stall the criminal proceedings. This is the same tactic he is using with his frivolous motions to dismiss in the Civil Case.
Additionally Neil claims that he discovered some computers that have “exculpatory emails” as to why Feuerborn and Jennings issued loans to themselves. (Note: Where are the loan documents? How do you explain the condominiums, cars, interior decorating, motorcycles, RVs? You want us to believe that you were really going to pay back the investors one day?!?! Ha! You had that opportunity after Louisiana and you did nothing!)
Neil goes on to say, “[p]rior to January 6, 2011, we had been led to believe, by the Plaintiff, through Eric Vandevelde, that the only evidence which existed from the seizure of Defendant’s car by the County of Ventura in 2005, were certain documents which had been scanned and produced to us previously. We learned on January 6, 2011, that this representation was not accurate, and that, in fact, the computers existing in Defendant’s car when it was seized by the County of Ventura existed and were available to the Plaintiff just by asking the County of Ventura evidence hold employees to look for these computers, which occurred for the first time on January 6, 2011!” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO Page IDs 756 and 757). (He seriously used an exclamation point?!?!)
Neil also claims that Larry Shultz is an expert witness. (Does Shultz plan on selling shares of ESS to jurors?) Shultz is clearly an unstable individual when you read the Civil Lawsuit, and read portions of the transcript of the Civil Case hearings made available to me. Neil also wants to call an individual named Paul Secote (spelled Sicotte by the U.S. Attorney) “who works for a Canadian Company which had initiated a joint venture of this technology with ESSI (the parent company developing this technology) by creating large equipment which would utilize the technology on a large scale, a witness which the Plaintiff has contacted and interviewed previously while I was on the telephone. Mr. Sicotte will testify that his Company spent a substantial amount of money testing and evaluating the technology in question, and has determined that it’s a bona fide technology of the substantial value which Defendants believe exists” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO Page IDs 764).
Analysis:
So, apparently Paul Sicotte is a part of Elemax (the Canadian Joint Venture), and Neil admits that he has “spent a substantial amount of money” on this fraud. Don’t you think he might be a little biased because he wants to sell his stake in this “solvent” to get his money back? If this is a “billion dollar” idea then why hasn’t he finished this project yet to prove the merits of the technology? Obviously Larry Shultz is neck deep in this fraud with the Defendants. The Civil Lawsuit produces a mountain of evidence that he is now their front man for this con. Shultz is now the one Feuerborn and Jennings use to make misrepresentations to investors.
Neil also claims that he wants to enter evidence of patents that show that Feuerborn is an “inventor”. It is amazing to me that none of the patents he proposes to enter in as evidence has anything to do with the solvent technology! In fact Freestone has presented evidence where Dave and Larry both claim that part of the technology is patented and part of it is patent pending. Wouldn’t these be interesting patents to see, or did Feuerborn, Jennings and Shultz lie to Freestone about their existence?
The Criminal Case is not about the technology’s validity. We all know it’s a scam because third-parties/state agencies have tested it extensively. Are you going to continue the lie that these third-parties/state agencies didn’t have the real formula?!?! If so, then present your chemist that has tested the “real technology” (hmmm, I don’t see any “bone fide” chemists willing to testify on your behalf). The Ventura County District Attorney, the California Department of Corporations, the Louisiana authorities, and Freestone have plenty of evidence that the chemical is toxic and carcinogenic.
Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Response:
“On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, counsel for defendant Feuerborn asked to inspect records the next day (Thursday) or the day after (Friday). Government counsel responded 13 minutes later, making the records available for inspection both days, starting at 7:30 a.m. Counsel for defendant Feuerborn never followed up” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO ; Page ID 767).
Evans had the opportunity to inspect all the documents in November. He decided to wait until January of 2011 in order to induce further delays in the Criminal Case. This is a tactic that is constantly being used by the Defendants in both the Criminal and Civil Cases.
“At no point prior to January 6, 2011, did counsel for defendant Feuerborn reference any computers seized from his client or ask the government to obtain such computers from any state authorities” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO ; Page ID 769).
“In his response to the government’s motion to compel reciprocal discovery, defendant Feuerborn indicates that he intends to introduce evidence about the effectiveness of the technology he has developed to separate petroleum from tar sands. (CR 76.) This issue would be relevant if defendant Feuerborn were charged with misleading investors about the effectiveness of his invention. But this is a tax case. Defendants are charged with conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, filing false tax returns (defendant Jennings), and tax evasion (defendant Feuerborn)” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO ; Page ID 772).
The Defendants also want to introduce videos of the technology. I think we have all seen the jar demonstrations that Evans would like to present. How does that prove that it’s a non-toxic product? I have already shown how a toxic substance can pass the aquatic fish test. It might be true that the "solvent" can remove oil from solids (I'm not saying that can or can't). Either way, that doesn’t mean that it is non-toxic, and that doesn’t mean it can be used in a mechanized process. Imagine what will happen when chlorinated gas escapes from the machine. People could be injured and die if they work around this chemical!
Let’s hope and pray the judge sees through these tactics!
-ESS Investor
No comments:
Post a Comment