Generator scam - freelectricity.com Dennis Lee
roger....@fan.net
These references reveal important facts regarding Dennis Lee's device.
1) "'Free energy' pitch generates charged reactions" USA TODAY 2 Nov.
1999 sec Life; pg. 8D
The USA Today article details an extraordinary account of Dennis Lee's
criminal record, as a traveling salesman peddling bogus heat pumps,
solar refrigeration systems, and investments in his own cooperative,
since 1985.
2) "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around" The Washington Post 12 Jan.
2000 sec. Horizon; pg. H03
3) "The Cold Fusion Files;" Los Angeles Times 28 Feb. 2001 sec.
Business; Part C; pg 1; Financial Desk Byline: Jerry Hirsch, Times
Staff Writer
The State's Power Crisis Is A Magnet For People Who Claim To Have Come
Up With The 'Breakthrough' That Will Solve The Energy Problem.
The LA Times article explains that Lee's Web site gives visitors,
"information on how to buy a "dealership" for his products--plus an
explanation for those eight fraud counts in Ventura County that once
landed him in prison for three years."
When I examined the freelectricity.com web site in Nov. 2001, the
explanations for fraud and jail time must have been removed.
The LA Times article also describes the historical frustration that
unproven, perpetual-energy machines have caused the US patent office,
and U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's battle with the
Joseph Newman energy device in 1985.
The Washington Post articles adds Newman lost his suit when he was
ordered to turn his energy machine over to what then was called the
National Bureau of Standards for testing. Properly measured, the
output power was found to be much less than the input power.
Just in case Dennis Lee registered a patent, under any of the aliases
used on his web site, my 11/6/01 US patent search of both databases
had these hits:
1)"Better World Technologies" (0)
2)"International Tesla Electric Company" (0)
3) TechKnowLogic (0)
4) Sundance AND generator (1)
5) Hummingbird AND generator (3)
6)"Dennis Lee" AND generator (5)
7)"Dennis Lee" AND magnets (0)
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
These 9 hits included medical devices, bearing lubrication process, a
microwave device, and data processing patents. Nothing related to
energy or electric generators.
The LA Times and WA Post point out private funding can be abundant for
perpetual-motion or energy devices in spite of failed patent
applications and failure to produce a working device.
The Washington Post notes, for Randall Mills hydrogen device,
Blacklight Power raised $ 20 million in private investments, and
retained investment banker Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, in hopes of
making a public stock offering for their breakthrough hydrogen powered
free energy device.
So far, however, these ventures have failed to produce a product. The
LA Times quotes Robert Park, a University of Maryland physicist and
author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. "Under
the microscope of scientific scrutiny, most of these 'discoveries'
turn out to be versions of the mythic perpetual motion machine or its
modern counterpart, a cold fusion device."
I am also aware, however, --no matter the prototype or invention--
patent protection is not always recommended or possible. More on this
later.
The Web site articles I found regarding Dennis Lee were poorly
referenced.
4) Scambusters.org issue #45 Beware of Energy Scams
http://www.scambusters.org/Scambusters45.html
5) Prior arrests and fraud in several states a matter of public record
http://www.techtv.com/news/transcripts/story/0,24195,3330284,00.html
What all these articles failed to explain, to my satisfaction, was how
Dennis Lee --and others like him-- continue to stay in business and
out of legal trouble.
Perhaps, persuasive marketing does generates lots of cash.
There does exists a sound business model, in the case of a Lee's
generator. In theory, a free generator in exchange for any excess
power sold back to the grid can provide a payoff that makes good
business sense. If confidence in excess capacity sound, it may be a
good model for renewable devices that do plug excess power into the
grid at night or vacation time.
Without any proof of concept or product delivery, in Nov. 2001 Lee's
web site claimed 200,000 registrants that paid US $5.00 each so far
--not including investment options--. There must be over $ 1 million
in revenue plus a very large mailing list of US homeowners, complete
with Name, Address, and Phone number.
Perhaps, legal sanctuary can be found in many places.
Lee's FAQ at freelectricity.com stated in Nov. 2001, "ITEC plans to
begin installation of the Hummingbird/Sundance generator once 1.6
million households across America have been registered."
There exists no obligation if the target number of 1.6 million members
goes unmet (or unproven). There would be no breach of contract. This
is a legal sanctuary under contract law.
If the transaction is not considered a financial investment by the SEC
or NASD, US citizens are left with common law, contract law or the
Uniform Commercial Code. Therefore, if fraud cannot be proven, with
Lee's use of contract law, all registration fees and member
investments can be legally forfeit, regardless of the electricity
generator being real or allegations of fraud.
The automobile sales industry has also been accused by consumer groups
of unjust enrichment for similar auto leasing contracts. Please look
up any article on auto leasing contracts for further reading.
I believe Pyramids schemes, MLM's, and network marketing has also
preyed upon individuals for initial investments given on trust or with
sales-performance burdens on members. While creative financing, such
as auto leasing, preys upon fine-print complexities in contract sales.
Dennis Lee's venture enjoys the advantages of both.
Perhaps, Lee's descriptions of the Political and Economic environment
is accurate.
On his freelectricity.com web site, Lee states that he will not
disclose his patent progress because of hostile competitors he
suspects can steal his ideas regardless of a patent.
The best article I read on this environment was a Nov. 2001 article on
patent insurance.
Daniels, Cora. "Small-Business Rip-Off, When a big firm took their
idea, this couple fought back" Fortune Small Business Magazine Nov.
13, 2001. Copyright Time Inc.
This article describes a long history of cost effective patent
infringements, perpetrated by larger firms that rely on outlasting
individual patent holders in court, because they historically give up
under expensive and lengthy legal expenses.
The article notes patent insurance, designed to cover extended court
battles, has become competitively priced, some patent attorneys are
competent enough to take cases on contingency, while other patent
attorneys may also fund or partner with some of the ventures they help
protect.
When I went to Business school at CSU Fullerton, and attended an extra
curricular program called the Southern California Entrepreneurship
Academy, directed by Maureen Ford, I learned from the founders of
Mosimo, Bugle Boy, Xircom, and Chapin Medical that Poorly written
patents are targets for international ripping shops, especially when
the patent applies only to the country of origin. Ripping shops copy &
register the patent in the remaining global markets.
I also believe, legal and technical expertise can sufficiently broaden
the jurisdiction and language of patents to improve damage recovery
from ripping shops.
Perhaps, Dennis Lee's preference for "registration fee" financing
makes business sense.
Dennis Lee claims a working prototype which demonstrates proof of
concept. All the leverage needed to secure most any financing model.
Why then choose registration fees as a model for financing?
Perhaps the virtue of being able to avoid sharing ownership, and
side-step the creditor's collateral for a loan, and securities law,
which avoids disclosure of investor risk or asset-liquidation rights
or financial auditing.
This creative "registration fee" forces members to make investments by
contract law, and to depend entirely on "sales publications" or the
individual integrity of people like Dennis Lee. No investor
safeguards or payback is required.
Avoiding the need to share ownership through issued stock, bonds,
certificates, or assets upon dissolution dispenses with the investor
rights common to any "exit strategy" section of the business plan,
required by banks, venture capital groups, or production partnerships.
For good reason, if persuasive marketing can generate cash without the
need to borrow other peoples money, secured-assets and ownership
sharing is not required. With freelectricity.com Dennis Lee achieves
this goal, and the potential to enjoy his exploit with impunity.
If past behavior is related to future performance, product delivery or
refund may not be the objective.
Roger Ruhle
Fullerton, CA.
Pleae remove ".nospam" to email