New Poll: Larry Shultz

I have received two emails from investors that have recently met with Larry Shultz about this scam.  They told me that Shultz attempted to take them on a field trip to view a fake machine in an effort to raise money on behalf of David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.  Apparently even the criminal convictions of his partners will not stop this new guy Shultz.  Please take a second to make your opinion heard in the poll below, and thank you for voting in the last poll:

 

Please Vote!

Judge Denies Feuerborn’s Motion to Suppress Evidence *Corrected*

“ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DAVID J. FEUERBORN'S REQUEST FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED TAX EVASION; ALL EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED BOGUS ECO-LOGIC ACCOUNT; AND TO DISMISS ALL TAX EVASION CHANGES AGAINST DAVID FEUERBORN DUE TO: (A) USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY; (B) DESTRUCTION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE; AND (C) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE; DECLINING TO HEAR DEFENDANT THOMAS R. JENNING'S JOINDER MOTION. [Docket No. 83, 88.]” (Case 2:2010-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 1497).

It looks like the Judge filed this written explanation of why he DENIED the motion filed by Feuerborn during the trial to suppress evidence.  

The best part of the Judge Otero’s Order was the discussion about why he denied David’s motions.  Basically he states that Neil Evans, the attorney for David Feuerborn, didn’t file anything correctly or timely. 

“Local Criminal Rule 12-1.1 mandates that any motion to suppress 'shall be supported by a declaration on behalf of the defendant, setting forth all facts then known upon which it is contended the motion should be granted.' L.Cr.R. 12-1.1. Defendant Feuerborn's motion contained no such declaration. (See generally Feuerborn's Mot.) Defendant Feuerborn, however, did file his Declaration on February 18, 2011 and a Declaration of Neil Evans, counsel for Defendant Feuerborn, on February 22, 2011. (Docket Nos. 100, 103.) At Defendant's request for a continuance, the trial date was set for February 22, 2011. (See Docket No. 81.)”

Because the instant Motion was not supported by a declaration on behalf of Defendant Feuerborn, the Motion violated the local rules. Accordingly, the Court may deny hearing the instant Motion on the merits. Even considering Defendant Feuerborn's untimely submitted declarations, the instant Motion was not complete until the first day of trial” (Case 2:2010-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 1499).

“According to the Court's Criminal Standing Order, '[m]otions to [s]uppress must be filed thirty-five (35) days prior to the trial date and set for hearing two (2) weeks prior to the trial date at 8:30 a.m.' Criminal Standing Order ¶ 14.

As provided in the Criminal Standing Order, the deadline for motions to suppress was January 18, 2011, thirty-five days prior to the trial date. The instant Motion was correctly submitted on February 22, 2011, when the declarations required to support it were filed. (Docket Nos. 100, 103.) Because the Motion to Suppress was not complete until the day of trial, it violated the Criminal Standing Order. See Criminal Standing Order ¶ 14. Even assuming the instant Motion was initially filed in accordance with the Local Criminal Rules on February 15, 2011, Feuerborn filed it seven days before trial and twenty-eight days after the Court's motion deadline passed. (Docket No. 83.) This Motion is, therefore, in violation of the Court's Standing Order. See Criminal Standing Order ¶ 14. Defendants waived their right to file a motion to suppress because they did not file the instant Motion by the deadline and did not request an extension by the Court.

The Court also notes that the trial date was set after Defendant's fourth request for a continuance. Defendant specifically requested that trial commence on February 22, 2011. The instant Motion was untimely filed and would have caused further delay of trial because the jury panel had already been ordered on the morning of February 22, 2011. As a result, the Court would have had to delay trial to hear the instant Motion.

Furthermore, Defendant Feuerborn's representation that he recently discovered the grounds for the instant Motion is not credible. Defendant Feuerborn argues that '[t]he basis for this Motion was developed in January and February 2011' (Feuerborn's Mot. 13:14-15) and that the existence of the seized computers had not been disclosed to him until January 6, 2011. (Feuerborn's Reply 7:13-14, 11:27-28, 12:14-15). Defendant Feuerborn also asserts that 'he should be granted a continuance of the [t]rial so that he can try to recreate the records which were on the [c]omputers, by subpoenaing records from third parties co[m]prising the third party vendors which sold the chemicals and equipment purchased with monies from the 'Eco-Logic Account.' (Feuerborn's Reply 12:26-13:1.) These contentions, however, are unavailing because Defendant Feuerborn was aware that his computers and documents were seized in August 2005 and could have filed a motion to suppress well in advance of trial. Moreover, at any point after August 2005, Defendant Feuerborn was capable of subpoenaing third parties in order to recreate the records which were on the computers”(Case 2:2010-cr-00346-SJO; Page IDs 1499 and 1500).

Sorry David.  You should have filed your original motions in a timely manner, and with the proper attachments in accordance with the Court’s rules.  Ooopsy daisy!

This motion has no bearing on the recent motions mentioned in the post The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.  I can’t wait for June 27^th to roll around.  Court documents indicate that these motions will be heard before the sentencing hearing.   

-ESS Investor

Civil Case Update: Second Motion to Dismiss was DENIED

Finally some traction in the Civil Case.  Feuerborn’s, Jennings’, and Shultz’s Second Motion to Dismiss was just denied by Judge O’Connor.  It looks like the litigation will now move forward as planned.  I'm not sure if there was a hearing, but I will try to inquire.  Hats off to the guys at Freestone continuing the fight to stop this scam.  

-ESS Investor

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Well folks, Feuerborn’s attorney, Neil C. Evans, filed Defendant Feuerborn’s Rule 33 Motion for New Trial: Request for Evidentiary Hearing on This Motion and on the Motion to Suppress and Related Motions (“Motion for New Trial”), as well as Defendant Feuerborn’s Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“Motion to Acquit”).  In Evans’ Motion for New Trial he claims that (i) the Prosecution failed to disclose material evidence, (ii) the Honorable Judge S. James Otero denied Feuerborn a fair trial because he refused to hear a Motion to Suppress that was filed in an untimely manner, (iii) Judge Otero did not fully consider possible prosecutorial misconduct on behalf of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and (iv) that the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and Internal Revenue Agency engaged in activity to purposely destroy “exculpatory evidence”, and intentionally stole items from David Feuerborn (to name just a few of the outrageous claims made in said Motion).  In the Motion to Acquit Evans states that the Prosecution did not establish “mandatory willfulness element beyond a reasonable doubt” and that the Prosecution “failed to establish the high standard of proof for a conspiracy charge” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 1479 and Page ID 1481).  

The Good

Feuerborn is so bold that he contends that the Honorable Judge S. James Otero did not give him a fair trial, and that the Judge should have granted a fifth continuance!  (Or was this number six?  There were so many continuance requests that I am beginning to lose track.) Feuerborn’s attorney cites the fact that the Judge delayed the trial by 24 hours, and that if the Judge can do that then Neil Evans should have the same right!  

This is a Judge that was appointed by the President of the United States of America.  I can’t believe that Neil Evans and David Feuerborn have the gall to say that this Judge did not give them a fair trial, and that he intentionally overlooked prosecutorial misconduct.  Once again David is blaming others for his problems.  This Judge worked hard to get where he is today.  Unlike David, the Judge didn’t scam investors to make a quick buck.  Stop trying to scapegoat your criminal activity by blaming The Good! 

The Bad

The Motion for New Trial goes on to say, “[t]he Court improperly allowed the Prosecution to use demonstrative exhibits, including about 10 demonstrative exhibits containing Defendants’ Mug Shots.  By doing so, the Prosecution improperly ‘inflamed the jury’s passions and fears,’ in violation of due process” (Case 2:10-cr-00346; Page ID 1467).  This is another example of David’s contempt for the jury, and his belief that the jury didn’t have the intellectual ability to impartially examine the plethora of evidence against him.  The Motion for New Trial goes on to state, “[i]n this case, using the ‘Mug Shots’ of the Defendants in the context of their alleged ‘frivolous purchases’ was clearly designed to inflame the jury’s passions – suggesting that the jurors should convict these ‘obvious criminals’ because they look like criminals and they are ‘ripping the government off’ by these ‘seedy looking individuals’ buying expensive cars, motorcycles, etc” (Case 2:10-cr-000346; Page ID 1468).  I’m sorry Neil, but if it quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

Another portion of the Motion for New Trial attempts to defame one of the Government’s witnesses, John Staniforth.  The Motion for New Trial states that, “he admitted that his alleged source of information regarding the ‘Ecologic LLC’ account, was ‘snooping’ where he did not belong.  His testimony, in this regard, was not credible and appeared to have been ‘staged’ and ‘prepared’” (Case 2:10-cr-00346; Page ID 1466).  Who cares if this witness found the documents by “snooping” around?  He took this action in order to protect the shareholders when he noticed that money was quickly disappearing!  How else would he have learned that these con artists were hiding investor money in secret bank accounts?!?!  Clearly Feuerborn and Jennings were using devious methods to hide the Ecologic bank account.  It sounds to me like Staniforth just fought fire with fire!  He is a hero to all ESS investors and definitely The Bad-ass who helped uncover this massive fraud. 

The Ugly

In the Motion for New Trial Feuerborn states that the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, as well as the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department intentionally withheld evidence that is exculpatory in nature.  Feuerborn goes on to make the claim that the Sheriff’s Department intentionally lost key evidence and lied about the existence of certain evidence.  All I have to say to this claim is that I hope the Sheriff’s Office gets to pick the bunk mates (The Ugly) for Feuerborn and Jennings while they spend their R&R in prison. 

These new motions should show the Judge the true colors of Feuerborn and Jennings, and I hope he sees why they need to spend the statutory maximum behind bars!     

-ESS Investor    

Anonymous Blogging Turned On

Recently I enabled the ability to post anonymously, but some individuals used the opportunity to abuse the comment feature.  I have resumed anonymous posting to allow ESS investors, and others that know about this scam, a forum to tell their stories and voice their opinions.  To ensure that this feature is not abused I have enabled the moderator feature so that each comment will be reviewed before it is posted to the site. 

-ESS Investor     

Larry Shultz: Continuing the Con and Helping the Criminals

I received a tip from an anonymous source that stated that he was recently approached by Larry Shultz (pictured below) for an investment in the “oil separation chemical scam”.  He said that Larry was trying to present David and Tom as inventors that have no business sense, “but have a great idea” as an excuse for their criminal activity.  I find it deplorable that he is, TO THIS DAY, continuing David’s con job on innocent investors.  He doesn’t even care that David and Tom were just found guilty of fraud by a federal grand jury!  Clearly nothing will stop this scam unless the government takes action against EVERYONE involved (including this Shultz character).  

I told this tipster that he should contact the FBI and let them know of the recent criminal convictions of his partners.  Hopefully the authorities will stop this scam, and place all the perpetrators in prison.  Enough innocent people have been hurt!

I wouldn't be surprised if he helps them flee before their prison sentence.

Larry Shultz:   

Fly Away?

I have received multiple tips from concerned ESS investors that believe that David Feuerborn will attempt to flee the country before his sentencing hearing.  This concern is based on the following information:

Paul Sicotte

David has connections (and possibly large cash deposits) in Canada.  A Canadian citizen named Paul Sicotte was a key witness in the Criminal Case for Mr. Feuerborn.  Based on Mr. Sicotte’s recent statements, he is still a firm believer in their “technology” and knows that he will be out of business if David is in prison.  I highly doubt that he still believes in their technology, but he testified on their behalf because Mr. Sicotte needs the ability to sell the technology to a third party in order to recapture his investment.  Thus he must keep some semblance of the technology’s credibility despite the fact that he knows it doesn’t work, and is extremely toxic.  

David’s Girlfriend, Asa Kilander

It has also been reported to me that Asa Kilander (pronounced “Osa”) makes multiple trips to Sweden every year, and it is believed that she has funneled ESS money into Swedish bank accounts on behalf of David.  Additionally I am told that she and David purchased a ranch in Sweden with ESS money.  Asa also received large amounts of investor money from ESS based on tax documents the Government has produced.  

Both Canada and Sweden have treaties with the U.S. that allow for the extradition of convicted felons, but I have a feeling David will use nefarious methods if he decides to flee before the sentencing hearing.  I base this opinion on the fact that the Government still has their passports, and thus they would be required to use illegal methods to escape the borders of the United States.  That doesn't deviate from the fact that they most likely have money offshore that they can access after they flee the country.

Please feel free to send me your opinion and your thoughts on this subject.  Let me know if you have any more information on Paul Sicotte or Asa Kilander (pictured above), and their involvement in this scam.  I am very concerned and I believe they should, at the very least, be required to wear ankle bracelets.  Hopefully someone from the DOJ takes this concern very seriously.   

-ESS Investor