Possible Sanctions!

The Judge in the Criminal Case signed the order continuing the Criminal Trial until February 22, 2011. 

The Hearing’s minutes were also posted.  The minutes do not contain any ruling as to the Defendant’s attempt to create a “mini-trial” on the solvent’s effectiveness to confuse the jury (I believe that hearing is scheduled for January 18, 2011).  Feuerborn and Jennings are trying to sell the jury that the chemical is non-toxic (despite all the evidence to the contrary from state agencies and private companies), as well as the claim that the product can generate “billions of dollars” (despite tens of millions of dollars raised, purportedly, for the technology and not one cent of profit earned).  Once again, this is a Criminal Case about how the defendants (David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings) created bogus bank accounts in the name of their vendors to secretly and illegally funnel money to themselves in order to deceive investors and the United States Government, and how they did not pay taxes on the money they funneled to themselves.

Furthermore, “[t]he Court orders Mr. Evans and Mr. Neimand to comply with discovery under FRCP 16(b) and 26 by February 8, 2011.  If counsel fail to comply and the Court finds that such failure is without good cause, this Court may prohibit defendants Feuerborn and Jennings from introducing evidence at trial in their case in chief and or hold Mr. Evans and Mr. Neimand in contempt should the Court find willful failure to comply.  The Court may also impose other sanctions including monetary sanctions” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO ; Page ID #789).

I still can’t believe they are claiming that Lawrence Shultz is an “expert” witness.  I would like for Feuerborn and Jennings to explain why Shultz is an expert.  Larry Shultz already testified that he is only an “introducer” and he admits that he is “not a partner with them.”  Personally, I believe he is their new partner in this scam.  He only testified that he is an “introducer” in order to avoid being criminally liable in their fraud (the plausible deniability argument).  Shultz’s recent Government Filing is contradictory to his claims in the Civil Case that he is merely an “introducer”.  He clearly indicates that his hands are as dirty as Feuerborn’s and Jennings’.  I also can’t imagine how any sane and honest individual would align themselves with Feuerborn and Jennings in light of their recent criminal indictment and civil lawsuit, as well as their past legal issues.  Jail birds of a feather tend to flock together.           

-ESS Investor