“If you drink much from a bottle marked `poison,' it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.”

Happy New Year Blog World!  Let’s pray that David and Tom will be spending 2011 behind bars so they cannot scam any more innocent victims, and hopefully this new guy, Lawrence Shultz, will be following in their footsteps.  

Over the holidays I read a comment posted on the VRI Board.  I thought it was a great idea.  According to the claims of David, Tom and now Lawrence, the chemical solvent is completely “non-toxic”.  ESS investors were all sold on this idea, and Freestone has shown emails, a fake MSDS and other documentation from David, Tom and Lawrence where they continue to make this claim.  If that is the case then they should be willing to let their family and friends that have assisted in the marketing and sale of this product drink a litre of it.  Then David, Tom and Lawrence should all drink a litre of it.  What better way to prove that it is not toxic!?!?

I hope the people at Freestone read this post and pass it on to their legal counsel.  If David, Tom and Lawrence say that they will not drink the product, nor will they let their friends and family drink the product, then that is definitive proof that it’s toxic stuff - case won!  Obviously you will have to watch them closely to make sure they don’t engage in anymore Parlor Tricks, and try to swap out the toxic chemical after the experiment with water or something of the like.

Only 15 days until their trial!

- ESS Investor

Courtroom Drama

I put a phone call in to Freestone’s office to ask if anyone from the company attended the hearing on Wednesday.  I spoke to an individual at the company that attended the hearing, and he gave me a play-by-play of what occurred.  I will keep his identity anonymous out of respect for his privacy.  I have no ill will towards their company, because they have been hurt by this scam just as all the ESS investors have been hurt.    

Usually federal court hearings are pretty bland, but I am told that this one had a little excitement.  To begin, David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings did not show up.  Neil Evans (David Feuerborn’s criminal attorney) was present as well as the new third partner, Larry Shultz. 

It sounds as if this hearing was more exciting than an episode of Law & Order.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at this hearing, because according to my source at the company Larry Shultz was thrown out of the courtroom by Judge O’Connor for speaking out of turn while in the gallery.  Now I am more inclined than ever to get a transcript of the proceedings so I can find out exactly what was said that angered the Judge.  Shultz wasn’t just warned.  He was thrown out!  Not the best first impression on a Judge that will be presiding over your case if you ask me.  I wonder if the Judge knows about the criminal charges that have been brought against Feuerborn and Jennings by the U.S. Attorney's Office.  It looks as if this guy Shultz is now completely intertwined in their chemical scam, and if he has been involved in raising money for them he might be involved in their criminal activities which include defrauding the federal government, and tax fraud.  I hope someone investigates and follows the recent money transactions.    

   

(Note: The Judge allowed Shultz to come back in to testify as a witness in the hearing.  While on the stand Shultz apologized for his outburst.  It will be interesting to see what he said on the stand, and if it conflicts with any information that is known about the chemical scam.)

After the discovery of this news I am going to order a complete transcript of the proceedings.  I will update everyone when I get it. 

-ESS Investor

The Eyes of Texas are Upon You

It looks as if we have some life in the Civil Case.  Judge Reed O’connor has ordered both parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) to appear for a hearing on November 17, 2010 to hear verbal arguments on the jurisdiction challenge submitted by Neil Evans, the attorney for David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz, and Environmental Services and Support, Inc. (“Defendants”). 

On November 17^th Freestone will argue that the Defendants had the minimal contact needed in the state of Texas to keep the jurisdiction in the Northern District Court in Texas.  According to my research, minimal contact is usually all one needs to prove in order to keep the original jurisdiction in which the complaint was originally filed.  According to Freestone’s response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants had minimal contact with Texas in that they originally solicited a Freestone consultant and resident of Texas while he was in Texas, made multiple phone calls to Freestone’s Texas office, sent multiple emails to Freestone’s Texas office, visited Freestone’s office in Texas on multiple occasions where they gave misrepresentations during demonstrations of the solvent, a demonstration trip in Houston, and the Petro-Sog case indicating that at least one of the Defendants (David Feuerborn) has previously directed this scam at the state of Texas.

Neil Evans, the attorney for Feuerborn in the Criminal Case, argued that he didn’t have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his client, and requested a continuance multiple times in the Criminal Case.  Now, how are we supposed to believe that he has time to travel to Texas to represent all of the Defendants in the Civil Case?  What are the odds that he will come up with some obtuse reason to postpone the jurisdiction hearing in the Civil Case?  But then again the Judge must to approve his reason before he will allow the hearing to be postponed.  I have a feeling that Judge O’connor will not have a lot of patience for these guys if they attempt delay tactics when he hears about their criminal indictment. 

So now the Defendants’ attorney is going to fly back and forth between California and Texas on ESS investors’ funds.  This is the biggest travesty of them all.  On a phone conference with ESS investors David Feuerborn claimed he was looking for a joint venture partner, and that construction was underway on another machine.  Instead, it looks like any new money that might come into this venture will be spent on defending David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.    

Personally, I would like both cases to move forward as quickly as possible.  My goal is to collect any and all evidence in the Criminal Case and Civil Case that proves that Feuerborn and Jennings used fraud in their chemical scam in the hopes that an ESS class action can be put together.  If there is evidence that criminal actions have occurred then the authorities might even get involved and stop them once and for all!  No one else needs to get hurt by these guys and their scam. 

-          ESS Investor    

Petro-Sog, Ltd Lawsuit filed in 1994

I came across a lawsuit filed in 1994 in Texas.  The lawsuit is titled "Petro-Sog, Ltd v. Federation of Research Chemical Engineering, Inc., Bahman Abtahi, Bruce Akbari, and David Feuerborn" ("Petro-Sog Case").  This case was filed in Texas State Court in Harris County, Texas in the 280th Judicial District as Case # 96-50513.  The Petro-Sog Case is not listed on PACER because it was filed in Texas state court, but it can be found at the Harris County Courthouse or by using their online document retrieval website.  It took some digging, but I have summarized the relevant information below.

Case Summary:

Feuerborn, Akbari and Abtahi were operating under the company Federation of Research Chemical Engineering, Inc. ("FORCE") that had a solvent called Reneu.  Reneu is the product that ESS investors know as R6000.  David Feuerborn was the President of FORCE which was based out of Baldwin Park, California.  Reneu purportedly, "has an ability to separate hydrocarbons from liquids, separate hydrocarbons from solids, separate sulfur from hydrocarbons, and to act as a de-emulsifying agent" (Petro-Sog Case, Original Petition Page #4, Paragraph 10).  The Original Petition goes on to state that FORCE "sought to sell a large interest in its technology" (Petro-Sog Case, Original Petition Page #4, Paragraph 11).  The Original Petition goes on to state the following:

"On October 14, 1994, [FORCE] shared its technology and trade secrets regarding Reneu with a representitive of [Petro-Sog].  During this meeting, [Petro-Sog] learned that [FORCE], Abtahi, Akbari, and Feuerborn had made certain representations regarding Reneu that were false and untrue to induce [Petro-Sog] to enter the Agreement.  Among other things, [FORCE], Abtahi, Akbari, and Feuerborn falsely represented to [Petro-Sog] that Reneu had certain characteristics and abilities that it did not have or posses.  In particular, [FORCE], Abtahi, Akbari, and Feuerborn falsely represented that:

a.       Reneu and its reactants and products did not represent an environmental risk;

b.      Reneu and its reactants and products did not have any special disposal requirements;

c.       Reneu and its reactants and products did not have special handling and storage requirements;

d.      Reneu and its reactants and products did not require special EPA testing and/or approval;

e.      Reneu and its reactants and products did not possess chlorinated solvents; and 

f.    Reneu and its reactants and products are ready for commercial production” (Petro-Sog Case, Original Petition Page #5, Paragraph 15).

Judge Ruling:

"The Court found and now finds that each of the Defendants, [FORCE], Bahaman Abtahi, Bruce Akbari and David Feuerborn, committed actual fraud against the Plaintiff, [Petro-Sog]" (Petro-Sog Case, Final Judgment Page #1, Paragraph 2).

- ESS Investor