Stan Meyer's Public Notice to Inform
knews4...@yahoo.com
Article Segment 1 of 7
(Get All 7 Segments)
In article <5l9tg3$h...@newshost1.res.utc.com>,
feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) writes:
>
>>You said that Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud. If I said here that YOU
>>were convicted of fraud, wouldn't you denounce me and ask me to prove
>>it?
>>Why do you feel free to state this about Mr. Meyer? PROVE IT, or don't
>>go around making false statements about someone you only THINK is a
>>fraud.
>
>Please explain the following. We're still waiting for JW to post the
>letter he received from Stan Meyer explaining *his* version of the
>events in that Ohio courtroom.
This is transcribed word for word, letter for letter, with all
grammatical and punctuation errors.
Stan Meyer is an Inventor not a Writer.
WFC Public Notice to Inform
(copies may be duplicated for public release without charge)
The classic high-tech takeover schemes generally consists of
three basic elements: the money man, the disrupter (better
known as the bag man), and the third party man that has no
formal written agreement with the inventor...the circumstances
herein disclosed is no exception...a Historygram of Events.
1. Ill-fated attempts to take over WFC by whatever means, legal
or otherwise.
The pupose of this report is to detail the ill-fated attempts
to take over the Water Fuel Cell (TM) Technology of Inventions
since 1990, to show WFC countermoves and to describe the
current status of WFC. It is quite obvious that a technology
that will change the world's energy and economic base is a
prize that the world system would want to control, exploit,
and/or suppress. One man's desire to follow the Lord Jesus
Christ's plan to bring a new ecological safe energy supply into
the world would put him in conflict with those whose goals are
to create a New World Order under their control or who desire
to increase their wealth at the expense of the general welfare.
This report lists the names and times and is validated
by investigative WFC "Evidence of Records," affidavits,
documentation and the actual experience of the inventor
of the WFC Technology, Stanley A. Meyer. This report
contains only a small fraction of the attempts to control the
WFC Technology, since to list them all would require several
books. It covers only the highlights to keep it short and easily
read.
The Rick Schneider Affair
2. Rick Schnieder falsely claiming to be a certified FAA agent
and fully qualified FAA master aircraft machinist.
On 30 October 1990, Stan Meyer approved a WFC Dealership
Contract Agreement requiring a $40,000 deposit and other
expense monies to be paid by Rick toward project expenses
and signed by Richard (Rick) Schnieder, owner of the
Bushmaster Management Company. This WFC Dealership
work performance agreement was for the sole purpose of
obtaining a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification
of the WFC Water Fuel Injection System (R) on an Alaskan
Bushmaster Aircraft with a Mazda Internal Combustion (IC)
engine. Rick had purported himself to be a master machinist
and one of only six certified FAA agents who could certify
the Bushmaster for airworthiness once changes were made
to the fuel supply system of the aircraft.
3. Gilvesy, Brooks, and Dockweiler being business affiliated
with Rick on A55/A21 Gunderman project, a competitive
fuel additive product out of Reno Neveda.
In return for his assistance for FAA certification, Rick would
receive the WFC Dealership rights to install the WFC Water
Fuel Injection System (R) on the Mazda aircraft I.C. Engine
for the U.S. market only. The deposit payment on behalf of
Rick Schnieder was provided by check by William (Bill)
Brooks, wealthy race car driver, who also expressed (later)
an interest in retrofitting the WFC Injection System (R) to
a specially designed Corvette that had held the world's
land speed record and posibly a turbine jet aircraft. A
third party, John Gilvesey, a Canadian businessman,
wanted the right to manage WFC Central Operating for
Canada for land transport, namely cars. However, no
rticle Segment 2 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
subsequent agreements with Bill Brooks were ever signed
with WFC. John Gilvesey had no assigned aviation rights
to WFC. Gilvesey and Brooks are also, business affiliated
with Rick on the A55/A21 Gunderman fuel additive project.
The Jet Commander was titled to Brooks and his wife and not
belonging to Rick as rick claimed on BBC video tape.
4. FAA official notification that Bushmaster aircraft not
permitted to fly due to Rick uncertified modification..
causing Alaskan pilot passenger death.
Rick had moved to Washington Courthouse (WCH), Ohio
from Alaska and, subsequently, rented hangar space at the
WCH Airport to machine WFC parts from drawings provided
by Stan Meyer in supposed preparation to fly the Bushmaster
with the WFC Water Fuel Injectors (R) at the Oshkosh,
Wisconsin Air Show in late September 1992 or possibly in
1993. This could occur if Rick could officially obtain FAA
certification of the WFC Water Fuel Injectors (R) on behalf
of WFC. In a later investigation with the FAA, it was found
that Rick was not associated with the FAA, and was
involved in a $1.3 Million lawsuit concerning a September
1991 Bushmaster crash that caused the death of a passenger.
It was alleged that Rick had made uncertified modifications
to ther Bushmaster which he sold to the plaintiff/pilot, Daniel
Herman. Consequently, FAA in January 1992 notified Rick
that the Bushmaster was officially grounded and not permitted
to fly. WFC investigations revealed that other alleged litigations
against Rick involved claim jumping titles to aircraft, claim
jumping the development rights of Tundra Tires, claim
jumping the development rights of the Alaskan Bushmaster
aircraft out of Canada, claim jumping development rights of
the Mazda I.C. Engine for aircraft out of Japan, claim jumping
the rights of a goldmine, and claim jumping FAA type cast
certificates by falsifying US Government documents.
5. Rick Motive: defame WFC publicly but secretly to sell
out WFC for gain of profit.
By signed affidavit, Linda Russel, money broker for foreign
investors in the US, stated that on 6 February 1992, she
signed a Consultant Sales Agreement with Rick Schnieder
to sell the Bushmaster Management Company....including
the Alaskan Bushmaster aircraft with the Mazda I.C.
Engine. He also asked Linda to solicit foreign capital for
the purpose of selling WFC marketing and licensing rights.
Rick stated that Stan had given Rick a special (secret)
cotract that gave him worldwide marketing rights to WFC.
Apparently, Rick was unaware that Linda had purchased
a WFC Dealership (several years before) and knew that Stan
had refused a $280 Million offer for the rights to the WFC
Technology. Linda asked Rick to write out a marketing plan
for the sale of WFC marketing rights, which he did in her
persence. Rick also explained his share of the sellout
would be one percent of everything sold over the world.
However, current WFC dealership would be out, since
whoever controlled the licensing rights has control. (Rick
Motive: defame WFC publicly but secretly sell out WFC
for gain of profit.)
6. Rick falsly claiming to have WFC ownership rights to
foreign investors.
In actuality, no WFC documentations shows any such
written agreement was ever consummated to sign over the
marketing and licensing rights of WFC to Rick Schnieder
or to any other person(s) for any reasons. Stan still
maintains full and complete ownership rights to the Water
Fuel Injections technology, as so legally established by
Stan's patents reduce to practice.
On 14 August 1992, Stan went to the WCH Feyette
County Airport to pick up parts of two WFC Water Fuel
Injection (R) Systems machined by Rick Schneider to
be hand-carried by Stan to Schriver Anodizing in Columbus,
Ohio, for anodizing. In the airport hangar rented by Rick, he
stated he had no intention of giving Stan the systems,
pointed a loaded .45 caliber hand gun at him and threatened
his life if he did not leave. He stated he had the two WFC
Water Fuel Injection (R) Systems, along with the electronic
interfacing circuit cards under lock and key and in his control.
(Get Next Article Segment)
Article Segment 3 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
Though this event was immediately reported to the Feyette
County Sheriff's Deputy by Stan, no action was taken since
there were no immediate witnesses to the threatening action.
However, Forrest Hrper, a WFC dealer, being present during
the Sheriff's investigative talk with Rick Schneider, stated
later under oath in court of law that Rick schneider did in
fact pull a gun on Stan, as so related to him by Rick Schneider.
Rick schneider, while under oath in the same court hearing,
confirmed the he (Rick Schneider) drew a gun on Stan just
moments before Stan's call was placed to the Feyette County
Sheriff's Department. Previous court records indicate Rick
Schneider to be a convicted felon with a gun.
7. Rick Motive: If stan is not around who would oppose Rick
bogus secret document of ownership of WFC.
This hostile takeover attempt and threat to Stan's life was
a premeditated act on Rick's part. By written affidavit, Stephen
Meyer, Stan's brother reported that on the night of 8 August
1996, Rick had forewarned him in the presence of several
others that Rick would "kill" Stan if Stan attempted to pick
up the WFC Injection Systems. Stephen was unable to
warn Stan, as Stan was traveling to Europe to attend a technical
symposium and meet with various industrial leaders.
Unkowingly to Stan, the Sheriff's Department had received
complaints from Rick during this period stating that Stan
was threatening Rick. One of the supposed threatening calls
was overheard by a witness who stated that it was only a
normal business call the afternoon of the day before Stan's
trip to Europe. The other local area calls, which never occurred,
supposedly took place while Stan was overseas. (Rick Motive:
If Stan is not around, who would oppose Rick bogus secret
document of ownership of WFC?)
8. Rick admitted under oath in pulling a gun on Stan, as so
confirmed by Harper. Rick telling others: he still carries a gun,
he knows how to use it and don't forget it.
Stan took subsequent action to file a written report of
this event to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
US Patent Office, US Securities and Exchange Commission
and other appropriate officials since part of the WFC Water
Fuel Injector technology was still under National Security
Review. During a subsequent court hearing in 1996 on bogus
fraud charges against WFC in which Rick was a key player,
Rick admitted to pulling a gun on Stan. He also stated before
WFC witnesses during a recess at this hearing, that he
(Rick Schneider) "still carried a weapon," he (Rick Schneider)
"still knew how to use it" and "don't forget it."
9. WFC successfully defended itself against Rick bogus
charges to various U.S. Regulatory Agency.
Also, during the first part of 1992, bogus complaints were
filed against WFC to various Government and state regulatory
agencies (nine in all) including the US Federal Security and
Exchange Consumer Protection Agency, the State of Michigan
Department of the Attorney General, State of Wisconsin
Department of Justice, State of Ohio division of Security and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). WFC was charged with
fraud by deception and diverting/misusing WFC dealership
private monies. The main instigators of these false charges
were Rick Schneider, in business relationship with John
Gilvesey, Bill Brooks, Forrest Harper and Ron Dockweiler,
a Michigan businessman, WFC dealer, and a member of
A55/A21 Schneider group. WFC successfully defended
itself against all these bogus charges by providing it's well
documented records and evidence of proper filing with the
state of Ohio Securities and Exchange Commission under
oath of hearing.
10. Rick's bogus claims to WFC rights dismissed by plaintiffs
since filed charges have been proven by WFC as having no
merit of truth.
A complaint against Stan Meyer and WFC was filed on 4
August 1993 by Richard (Rick) Schneider, Bill Brooks, and
John Gilvesey in Frankiln County, Ohio Common Pleas
Court (Case No. 93CVH08-5477). Using the Dealership
Contract Agreement as bogus proof, they stated they had
(Get Next Article Segment)
Subject: Re: Alternative to electrolysis
From: h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD)
Date: 1997/05/15
Message-ID: <19970515205...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Article Segment 4 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
the contractual right to enter into and complete systems
engineering, manufacturing, and marketing of aviation
systems using the WFC Technology. They said Stan did
not honor this claim by providing the appropriate data and
support, and therefore, this group filed for breach of contract
and fraud and over $2 Million each for compensatory and
punitive damages. On 27 December 1993, WFC countersued
for $6.5 Million for compensatory damages and $2.5 for
punitive damages. This suit charged that Schneider, Brooks
and Gilvesy violated the WFC Dealership Contract Agreement
by attempting to make, sell and utilize a patented WFC device
without the written permission of Stan Meyer and that Brooks
and Gilvesy were possible co-conspirators with Rick Schneider
in the 8 August 1992 illegal seizure of WFC systems by gunpoint.
In May 1994, WFC received a Notice of Dismissal of the lawsuit
against WFC from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
11. Rick falsely claims title to Gilvesy Airplane. Gilvesy sues
Rick for claim jumping title.
On 16 August 1995, Project Design and Management Inc. and
John Gilvesy brought suit against Rick Schneider for the
conversion of their Lockheed L-60 aircraft for his own use
(Case No. W95 0259 CVH). The suit states that Rick attempted
to deprive the plaintiffs of their ownership rights by registering the
L-60 in a company that he controlled (claim jumping) and then
attempted to sell the aircraft to a third party.
12. Gunderman counter sues Rick for falsely claiming aviation
rights to fuel additive project.
The complexity of these lawsuits to control energy technology
is not limited only to WFC. On 17 September 1993, Rick
Schneider met with Rudolph Gunderman, the inventor of
A-55/A21, a new fuel additive. In a 20 September 1993 letter
from Rudolph to Rick, Rudolph outlined the terms under which
Rick could become a limited partner in the A55 venture. On
29 March 1995, a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Case
No. W95 0094 CUH) was entered by Rick against Rudolph.
Rick stated that Rudolph had accepted $25,000 to give Rick
the rights to expand and develope the A-55 technology for
aircraft applications. Since Rudolph had refused to perform his
obligations, Rick wanted payment of fair value for services rendered
and monetary relief for injury. It is the understanding of WFC that
Rudolph has countersued and the matter is still under court review.
12. Rick supposedly diverted A55/A21 investor funds to an offshore
bank account for personal use. Harper supposedly being the fund
raiser for the A55/A21 Schneider group. IRS and FSE investigating.
However, WFC has also learned that, during 1993, Rick
convinced over 100 investors, many in the WCH, Ohio area, that
he had the marketing rights to A55/A21 and that he raised $1.54
Million for investment in this venture. This investment group has
become known as the Schneider Group. It is to be noted the A-55/
A21 Technology is in direct competition with the WFC Technology.
WFC expects that when the Water Fuel Water Injection
System(s) (R) come on the market, there will be little demand for
A-55/21, since it is a mixture of water and naptha, a petroeum
by-product. Also, it is believed that Rick has now been dropped
from the Schneider Group. Reportedly by IRS, the bulk sum of
the raised monies were diverted by Rick to an offshore bank account
in the Cannin Islands.
13. A55/A21 members, Harper/Willis, directed by Rick tries
unsuccessfully to invalidate WFC Dealership Contract.
During August 1993, WFC received a letter from Forrest Harper,
a WFC Dealer (and a member of the A-55/21 Schneider Group)
that he wanted his dealership down payment returned because he
had cancer. Stan informed Harper by certified letter that WFC
would attempt to resell his dealership as per agreed WFC Policy...
even though Stan knew Forrest's involvement with Rick, including
his immediate presence during the 8 August 1992 hostile theat on
Stan's life. Forrest had notified Stan by telefax that if he did not
return the funds within ten days, he would sue WFC for fraud.
(Get Next Article Segment)
ubject: Re: Alternative to electrolysis
From: h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD)
Date: 1997/05/15
Message-ID: <19970515205...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Article Segment 5 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
Subsequently, WFC recieved Summons dated 21 September 1993
(Case No. CVH 930292) against WFC by Forrest Harper and
Richard Willis, another WFC Dealer, A-55/A21 Group member
and friend of Forrest's. Forrest and Richard stated that they had
bought their dealerships because of fraudulent statements by Stan
Meyer claiming the WFC was a new technology and a revolutionary
alternate energy system. They demanded $25,000 for compensatory
damages, $25,000 for punitive damages, and their attorney fees
together with interest and costs.
14. Rick tries unsuccessfully to decieve the U.S. Federal Security
& Exchange by falsley claiming WFC business rights.
In a 11 November 1993 letter to the Common Pleas Court of Feyette
County, Ohio, Stan denied the allegations and asked for $333,929
in compensatory damages and $279,250 in punitive damages.
He stated that Forrest Harper and Richard Willis were in direct
violation of the WFC Dealership Terms of Agreement, that Forrest
Harper violated Inventor Stan Meyer's patent rights by attempting
to make, sell and utilize a WFC patented device without written
permission and that Forrest Harper was under investigation as a
coconspirator in the "hostile takeover attempt and illegal seizure
by gunpoint of the two duplicate WFC Water Fuel Injection
systems by Rick Schneider...since U.S. Federal Security &
Exchange calls were recieved by WFC indicating Rick bogus
attempt to sell WFC technology to foreign investors, supposedly
one business group out of Japan and another business source
in London, England.
15. Plaitiffs unable to disprove WFC "Mode of Operability" of
using water only.
On 18 October 1995, a pretrial depostion hearing to inspect
the WFC Dealership demonstration units (Variable-plate Electrical
Polarization Process (VIC) Fuel Cell and Rotary Pulse Voltage
Frequecy Generator Tubular-Array Fuel Cell) was held in the office
of the plaintiff's attorney, Robert Judkins. Present were the
plaintiff's,
their attorneys, plaintiffs expert witness, Michael
Leverich(Electronics
Engineer), Stan Meyer, Dr. Russel Fowler, WFC witness and defense
attorneys Judge Roger Hurley and James Detling, as well as a
deposition recorder. During the deposition, Attorney Judkins
attempted to have the WFC dismantle (taken apart) prior to
implementing proper test proceedures, which Stan Meyer refused.
Michael Leverich confirmed that his initial measurements of the
WFC Fuel Cells showed that it operated exactly as the WFC
documentation stated it should, as so recorded on WFC
Deposition Video Tape. However, he then added a unknown
white substance(powder) for additional testing. Stan objected to
this, since the WFC Fuel Cell uses plain tap water and does not
require a chemical additive. The plaintiffs also admitted that,
during their observances at WFC Dealship Seminars, tap water
was always used without any chemicals added to the water.
Forrest Harper alone attende over 30 Seminars. Despite Stan's
objection, plaintiff measurements were taken of this chemicallized
water-bath and recorded. This illegal act of tampering with WFC
Evidence of Records was witnessed by WFC Cameraman, Dr.
Russ Fowler, and all others who attended Plaintiffs Deposition
To-Test.
16. Plaintiff Harper relative prevented to be presiding Judge.
Plaintiff attorney, Coffman, supposedly secretary of the A55/A21
Schneider Investment Group, forced to withdraw as plaintiffs
counsel due to conflict of interest.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio. WFC had requested a jury trial, but that was
disapproved since the request was later than the 14 days allowed
for such a request. A request for a change of venue to Franklin
County, WFC's home county, had also been disapproved... which,
being in opposition to Judicial Protocol in the fact that one of
Harper's relatives was on the Judgeship of Feyette County Court
District which included both Washington C.H., and Chillicothe, Ohio.
17. Plaintiffs counsel not able to disprove WFC Documents of
(Get Next Article Segment)
ubject: Re: Alternative to electrolysis
From: h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD)
Date: 1997/05/15
Message-ID: <19970515205...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Article Segment 6 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
Evidence as so established by independent test-labs, worldwide.
Defense presented their arguements and witnesses. Their three
prime "Expert Witnesses" were Plaintiff's Electronic Expert,
Michael Leverich, Rick Schneider and Ron Dockweiler. They
attempted to prove
that the WFC process was not new and revolutionary, but only
electrolysis, and that the Voltage Intensifier Circuit(VIC) did
not exist, contrary to WFC patent verification as so confirmed
via Plaintiff's Dispostion To-Test. The VIC is the primary component
to limit amperage leakage and to allow the voltage to increase,
which is the opposite result of electrolysis. Attorney Judkins
stated that the voltage-zones in both WFC Fuel Cells were only
copper and not stainlss steel material and that the WFC Fuel
Cells needed an additive to function. Rick Schneider claimed
that he had the WFC for three days for testing and that the WFC
Pulse Voltage Circuits were nothing more than a stack of batteries
chemically storing electrons. Charles Holbrook, WFC assistant
who was responsible for the WFC Fuel Cell during the time of
Rick alleged testing, stated under oath that the WFC Fuel Cell
was only out of his control for less than thirty minutes during
one lunch period.
18. Plaintiffs Counsel present no evidence to support their
false claims.
No verified testing results were presented by the defense
nor was any oscilloscope results shown for the WFC electronic
signal input to the WFC Fuel Cells by Rick. The plaintiff attorney
Judkin did finally admit in a Plaintiff's Motion that a form of salt
compound (no certificate of testing of chemical substance
presented by the Plaintiffs) had been put into the WFC Fuel
Cell during the depostion for testing... thereby, creating a dead
short condition and causing the WFC Fuel Cells to malfuction
(reducing gas production) since salt would degrade the WFC
gas process, not enhance it as with electrolysis...and, since
voltage has no effect on an electrolyte.
19. Judge Corzine attemps to intercede to prevent WFC
arguements to be presented before the court.
On 2 February 1996, the court was adjourned until
Wednesday, 8 May 1996. No WFC witnesses had been called,
including WFC Expert Witnesses and Electrical Engineer,
Mathias Johanson, from Sweeden. Instead Judge Corzine
called the lawyers into his chambers and informed them that
he could only find punitive damages of $1 and that they should
try to settle the case. This was made without WFC counter
arguements. Defendant Stan Meyer refused this offer, since
his arguements had not been heard and he was confident of
the merits of the proven WFC technology by independent
testing labs.
20. Plaintiffs Electronic Expert proclaims, under oath, that
WFC electronic circuits suggest that it is not an electrolysis
process.
The trial re-convened on Wednesday, 8 May 1996 through
Friday, 10 May 1996. Stan Meyer underwent extensive cross
examination. Judge Corzine disallowed WFC video tape filmed
during Plaintiff deposition to-test, WFC video tape of a WFC
Dealership Seminar that contradicted key testimony of Forrest
Harper and other plaintiff's witnesses, a well as WFC Test To
Confirm Video tape showing both WFC Electronic Experts,
Stephen Meyer and Mathias Johanson, confirming WFC VIC
Circuit unipolar pulse voltage input signal with low amp
leakage being applied to the Fuel Cells. Attorney/Judge
Hurley only called foreward one WFC witness and limited his
testimony. He did not allow key expert witness, Johanson to
take the stand since "his English was not good". WFC
witnesses find his English clear and easily understood.
Attorney/Judge Hurley also stated he wanted to present
an "Image of the Defendant", and not directly respond to
the Plaintiffs' charges. However, during this time Expert
Witness Leverich stated under oath of the hearing that the...
"electronic circuit interfacing suggests that it is not an
electrolysis process."
Other key findings under oath were that Rick Schneider
had threatened Stan Meyer on 14 August 1992 by pulling a
(Get Next Article Segment)
Subject: Re: Alternative to electrolysis
From: h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD)
Date: 1997/05/15
Message-ID: <19970515205...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Article Segment 7 of 7
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 7 Segments)
.45 calibre handgun on him, that Rick, Forrest, Richard, and
Ron were all in business relationship on the A-55/A21
technology and that electronic expert witness, Leverich, had
added salt to the WFC Fuel Cell during his measurements
at the deposition. Since the WFC uses ordinary water and
not an additive, this directly violated Judicial Protocol by
tampering with WFC Evidence of Records.
21. Judge Corzine prevents WFC Evidence of Records to be
submitted to the court by knowing and willfully switching off
the court audio sound recording equipment during WFC oral
testimony.
During Stan Meyer's oral testimony before the court in
demonstrating the WFC Fuel Cell "Mode of Operability" of
using the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) in producing
voltage of opposite polarity to separate and disassociates
the water molecule into its component gases, hydrogen &
oxygen, the court audio sound recording equipment seemed
to malfunction and be switched off. Judge Corzine said
proceedings should continue without it. This is a violation of
judicial protocol, since the recording system is used to verify
testimony given during the trial...and as such becomes
"Evidence of Records." After his oral testimony, Stan
expected Attorney/Judge Hurley to start bringing forth WFC
witnesses and counter arguements. Instead, Attorney/Judge
Hurley spoke up, stated he had to leave for a pre-planned
vacation and said that there was no more testimony to be
given and waver the right of the defendant to give a case
summary of the WFC facts brought before the court. Stan
Meyer immediately stated he would protest and Judge
Corzine ended the hearing.
21. WFC files charges of judicial misconduct by a presiding
judge to the State Supreme Court of Ohio, Disciplinary
Counsel...requesting a new trial or dismissal due to judicial
default.
Attorney/Judge Hurley told Stan Meyer that only evidence
accepted by the judge in the original case could be heard in
an appeal case. Since now there was no evidence of the WFC
Voltage Intensifier Circuit demonstration and related WFC
counter arguements before the court due to the fact that the
court audio sound recording system was off, they could not
be used in an appeal case. Also, 34 key poster boards that
explained the detail of the WFC voltage process were also
not allowed as evidence. Some had been numbered for the
court records, but then the numbering had been crossed out.
Also, the WFC patent documents had not been blue-tagged
as evidence. Therefore, Stan immediately started presenting
documentation and a list of complaints/discrepancies to the
State Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial Counsel, which
investigates complaints of judicial and/or lawyer misconduct.
Defense Attorneys/Judge Hurley and Detling, at this juncture,
were also summarily terminated by WFC for malpractice.
22. Judge shown to have malice of forethought.
WFC petitioned for a new hearing or dismissal of charges
by WFC documentation submitted on 22 July and 31 July 1996.
By written court order dated 9 August 1996, Judge Corzine gave
WFC on or before 4 September 1996 4:30 PM to submit a reply
to the plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion for a new
trial. Plaintiff's response was received by the court on 20
August 1996. WFC's reply arrived on 4 September 1996.
However, before the WFC reply was even considered, Judge
Corzine denied WFC's request for a new trial on 3 September
1996. His judgement, on the same date, found WFC guilty of
"gross and egregious fraud" with punitive damages of $1, a
penalty totally inconsistent with the wording used. This was
a change from his findings on the 7 August 1996 oral hearing,
in which he found WFC guilty only of "fraud" with punitive
damages of $1. A word change showing malice on the part
of Judge Corzine.
23. Judge rules against the very WFC Evidence of Records
not allowed to be submitted to the court due to the court
audio equipment being switch off by instruction of the
presiding Judge.
Judge Corzine ruled that WFC did not have an amperage
inhibiting circuit, did not have a Voltage Intensifier Circuit
(VIC) and therefore the WFC water splitting process was
only electrolysis. However, independent scientific verification
(Government and University Labs, Worldwide) of the WFC
technology as being different than electrolysis, including the
existence and amperage restricting operation of the Voltage
Intensifier Circuit (VIC) as well as verification by the US
Patent Office under 35 USC 101, had been established well
before the trial.
(continued on next post)
JW
FC Public Notice to Inform
Continued below.
JW
>23. Judge rules against the very WFC Evidence of Records
>not allowed to be submitted to the court due to the court
>audio equipment being switch off by instruction of the
>presiding Judge.
>
> Judge Corzine ruled that WFC did not have an amperage
>inhibiting circuit, did not have a Voltage Intensifier Circuit
>(VIC) and therefore the WFC water splitting process was
>only electrolysis. However, independent scientific verification
>(Government and University Labs, Worldwide) of the WFC
>technology as being different than electrolysis, including the
>existence and amperage restricting operation of the Voltage
>Intensifier Circuit (VIC) as well as verification by the US
>Patent Office under 35 USC 101, had been established well
>before the trial.
>(continued on next post)
>JW
>
next post >
Additionally, WFC was ordered to return to the plaintiffs their
WFC dealership deposits and pay their attorney fees, a total
amount of $40,515.72.
24.Judge Corzine impliments unsuccessfully, illegal collection
activities by attempting to collect six times the judgement
value.
On 2 October 1996, Judge Corzine signed an Affidavit, Order
and Notice of Garnishment of Property other than Personal
Earnings and Answer of Garnishee for the amount of $40,515.72.
This Affidavit includes a Notice of Hearing which gives the
Garnishee [ five days (underlined)] from the day he/she has been
served with the Affidavit to request such a hearing. However, on
the day that WFC recieved the Affidavit, WFC was notified by six
banks in Grove City, Ohio that Attorney Judkins had served them
with the court Garnishment Affidavit. This could have resulted in
the illegal withdrawl of over $243,000 from WFC accounts had all
these banks had WFC accounts. Obviously, no opportunity to
ask for a hearing was allowed. For the record, WFC has paid the
total cost asked for in the judgement plus 10 percent interest
from 3 september 1996.
Rick Motive: disclaim WFC patent developement rights in
order to attempt to use WFC technology with regard to A55/A21
project...since WFC requires no chemical additive to water to
become a fuel additive to gasoline or diesel fuel.
Statement of Summary
1. Judicial Protocol must be mandated to insure Defendant rights
to defend.
As a result of the experience of WFC in this court case, WFC
will push the U.S. court system to a Miranda "Statement of Ruling"
for defendants in lawsuits of this type. Defendants should be aware
of what steps they can take if their "Rights to Defend" are exploited
and denied in the court room by either lawyers or judges, or both.
The loophole must be closed where a lawyer can withhold evidence
until the last minute and then close the case as the defendant is
expecting the start of the counter arguements. This effectively
prevents the withheld evidence from being heard in any
appeal. Also, the defendant should understand his rights and
procedures to protest in the case of violations of judicial protocol
by the judge and what these violations of judicial protocol might
be and what corrective action(s) can be taken to protect the
[ Defendant Rights to Defend (underlined)] in an ongoing court
hearing. WFC charges of judicial misconduct by the
suppression of, tampering with, and refusal to properly
administer WFC Evidence of Records, is now before the
Disciplinary Counsel, The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio...
requesting a new trial or dismissal of Judge, Corzine, ruling
by Judicial default.
The Tony Edwards Affair
1. Many knowledgeable people in high positions support WFC
technology in many segments of industy. Admiral Griffin was
a strong supporter.
Since 1990, Stan Meyer and WFC had been championed
in England by Sir Admiral Anthony (Tony) Griffin, former
Comptroller of the British Navy, past President of the Royal
Institution of Naval Architects and Chairman of the British
Maritime Charitable Foundation. Sir Anthony had written
several technical reports and appeared in various English
seminars publicizing and explaining the WFC technology in
using water as a possible new fuel source. Admiral Griffin
was especially noted for modernizing the British Navy and
being a visionary in promoting a possible sea lane for under-
water cargo ships traveling beneath the North Polar Cap
through the Bearing Straights. Now, in late August 1996, he
invited Stan Meyer to participate, alone with other
Environmentalists, in a seminar supposedly to take place in
the Moses Room adjacent to the House of Lords, London
England. A highly controlled list of attendees, including
members of the House of Lords and House of Commons,
a well as industrialists and environmentalists, were
anticipated to be invited to the Seminar. Another public
seminar planned by John Allen was also being planned as well
as meeting with many industrial leaders in Europe. In preparation
for this trip WFC heard on 18 October 1996, that Admiral Griffin
had unexpectedly passed away from a fatal stroke on 16
October 1996. However, the British Maritime Charitable
Foundation, as well as Lady Griffin, requested that Stan still
participate in the Moses Seminar.
2. WFC requested to attend an Environmental Seminar in London,
England, that never existed in reality.
To honor Admiral Griffin's last request, as so related to WFC by
Mark Beach, Oxford representative to the Ukrain, Stan arrived in
England. Almost immediately, he was ushered into a closed door
meeting with memberes of the British Maritime Charitable
Foundation (BMC). In an attempt to intimidate him, they notified
Stan they had "just" been given information he had been charged
with "gross and egregious" fraud. They said their legal counsel
had advised them to cancel the meeting. However, if Stan could
provide the result of an appeal, reveal WFC contractual sources
and satisfy other requirements, than they would protect him
from the press, as so audio tape recorded. Stan provided fax
copies of his documentation with the Ohio Supreme Court
Judicial Counsel and other WFC documents denoting
confimation of WFC technology by independent test labs, but
refused the other demands and the Seminar was cancelled by
BMC.
The Foundation also attempted to have WFC pay their
expenses, which WFC refused in a Cease and Desist letter
since WFC had no contractual agreement with the Foundation.
Admiral Griffin had been briefed on the bogus court case and
never implied it would be an obstacle to the Seminar. Also,
supposedly the information on the court case was provided to
the Foundation by Noel Whitney, an Irish Businessman. Noel
had been involved in an earlier WFC "Proof of Concept" project,
which had been automatically terminated when Noel had lost
his funding source and was unable and openly refused to
pursue the WFC project any further as per terms of contract.
Apparently, Noel financial sources were misinformed...
finding out that Noel had no WFC intellectual rights for Europe.
Noel simply was to become a manufacturer supplier for WFC
provided that Noel satisfactorily completed WFC agreed to
work. Finally, it has been verified that the Moses Room had
never been scheduled for the Seminar. However, knowledge
of the court case and the cancellation of the Seminar did not
affect the many other business meetings that Stan had
scheduled during his trip to England and other parts of
Europe. Stan had in his possession the latest 1996 WFC
International News Release titled "WFC Setting Industrial
Standard," Technical Supplement Report (TSR), issue No.11A
denoting independent confimations of WFC tech-base by
various Governmental and University testing labs and explaining
how particle oscillation of the water molecule being exposed to
and undergoing pulsating electrical stress can cause the
water-atoms to function as an energy generator...instantly
converting water droplets into thermal explosive energy to
run a car by the use of WFC Water Fuel Injectors... by
simply replacing the standard spark plug or diesel injector
port in I.C. Engines, or injector nozzles in jet turbine Engines.
The Foudation was given a copy of the TSR by Stan during
the BMC seminar committee meeting.
3. WFC denounces Sunday Times Article by Tony Edwards as
being distorted. WFC never has received any U.S. Federal
cease and desist orders to stop developing the Water Fuel
Injectors for mass production.
In their 1 December 1996 issue , the London Sunday Times
published an article entitled "End of Road for Car that Ran
on Water" by TonyEdwards. It defamed WFC technology
and upheld the court case without due recourse, stating
that three "Expert Witnesses" were not impressed and
decided that the WFC was simply using conventional
electrolysis. It stated Stan Meyer was found guilty of
"gross and egregious fraud" and was ordered to repay
the investors their $25,000. It imlpied that Michael
Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen
Mary and Westfield University, London was due to examine
the car, but was not allowed to see it. However, not
mentioned was that this occurred in 1990 and that the
WFC Water Fuel injector tech-base was still under U.S.
National Security Review as in accordance to U.S. Patent
Law and not available for public viewing. Also not
mentioned were the many WFC Patents, verified laboratory
and university testing that supports the bases of WFC
technology nor the WFC appeal filing to dismiss Judge
Corzine ruling due to Judicial default and other relevant
information.
Stan wrote a "Request to Retract" fax-letter to the Sunday
Times on 2 December 1996. He attached WFC documentation
on the filing with the Disciplinary Counsel. He further stated that
Judge Corzine had no right to turn off the court audio sound
recording equipment, nor to rule against U.S. Patents, or
overrule Government and University lab reports in the public
domain concerning the mode of operability of the WFC
Technology. Furthermore, Stan pointed out that no US Federal
"Cease and Desist" order has ever been issued against WFC
since the WFC Technology has been fully legalized under US
Patent Security Law 35 USC 101 and other US Federal
regulatory Acts. His final statement was that "WFC is here
to stay" in contradiction to the Sunday Times statement.
4. Many people are not taken in by Tony Edwards bogus
article. They are openly speaking out, internationally.
The Sunday Times readership was not completely taken in.
For example, one letter to the Sunday Times Editor-in -Chief,
John Witherow from Ola Deraker, noted Swedish international
journalist, called the article scandalizing and pointed that
experts had talked positively about the WFC technology. He
also explained why the WFC process could not be electrolysis,
and wondered what the Sunday Times was going to do to
correct the matter. WFC has, also, filed a formal complaint
with the British Press Complaint Commission dated 14
December 1996 to redress the wrong from this article. Others
are comming to the aid of WFC and speaking out against the
distorted facts presented by Tony Edwards article.
In Retrospect to Events
1. Pupose of Power Brokers: defame WFC publicly by
whatever means to prevent financial and public support.
Isolate Inventor to push for a possible buy out.
A classic pattern seems to always emerge, one that has been
used many times to control, exploit, and even suppress new
technology that is not under corporate domination.
Corporations are specifically set up to take over and control
high technology, worldwide. First and foremost directive, try
to take over the inventor's work by whatever means possible.
This includes buyout at the lowest price or filing blocking
patents against the inventor. Attempt to get various regulatory
organizations or the Internal Revenue Service to investigate
the inventor with a resulting loss of financial resources and/or
time. Harass the inventor with countless court cases to falsly
claim that someone else owns and controls the technology, to
prematurely force the inventor to reveal his work before patents
are consummated. If a charge of fraud can be obtained, no
matter what the cicumstances, then use this to prevent further
financial support in business and stop publicizing the technology
publicly. Destroy/weaken the inventor's financial base if possible
to increase the likelihood of a sellout. Try to obtain a third party
or bogus agreements that can be used to provide a means to
attempt to capture control of the technology by way of
contractual loopholes.
5. U.S. Patent and Commerce Laws protects the right of the
inventor to reduce his patent to practice.
Fortunately, these bogus activitie are considered in the realm
of unethical business and legal practices. All have been tried on
WFC. However, its not morally right to do wrong. Without the
Lord's protection and guidance, the WFC would not be on the
verge of availability to the world as it is today. WFC is in the
system
engineering stage of its growth. WFC "Proof of Concept" contracts
are active and WFC is proceeding with building prototypes for WFC
units/kits for testing and developing a manufacturing standard for
mass production. Negotiations are underway far a large variety of
WFC projects around the world. The WFC is a topic on the Internet
and in many corporate boardrooms. Environmentalists are taking up
the banner for WFC around the World. The power brokers know one
thing...that if we come together in one accord, there is no power on
earth that can stop the progression of the WFC technology...our
planet earth is worth saving.
WFC Public Notice To Inform: December 20, 1996: Supreme Court
of Ohio, Disciplinary Counsel, Filing of Events.
Water Fuel Cell, 3792 Broadway, Grove City Ohio 43123,
1-614-871-4173; Fax 1-614-871-8075
Copyright(c) 1996 by stanley A. Meyer
Posted by JW
User
> WFC Public Notice to Inform
> (copies may be duplicated for public release without charge)
Meyer wrote that right after he was found guilty of fraud and ordered
to repay a couple of his victims $25,000. He was scared that the
outcome of the trial would prompt more of his victims to seek redress,
so he wove a rather elaborate story to try to convince them that their
money was safe...
Evidently you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
knews4...@yahoo.com
I just posted it.
Meyer's statement is his own.
Were you EVER in Meyer's presence?
Did you interview his witnesses?
Do you know the people he knew at Wright Patterson AFB?
Do you know who introduced Gilvesy to Meyer?
Do you know or have you met any of the people who worked with and
assisted Meyer?
Did you ever see his cell in operation?
How is it you think a person would spend thousands of dollars and
thousands of hours writing patents and filing them nationally and
internationaly on an "invention that will never work" and that is
"only a "scam?"
To what other planet does one escape after they get the "millions"
they "scam" from people?
Why didn't the judge order Meyer to "Cease and Desist'" his funding
scheme if he was such a "fraud?"
Why was he only fined ONE DOLLAR?
User
>On Sep 11, 7:43 pm, u...@email.address.here (User) wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:21:28 -0700, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > WFC Public Notice to Inform
>> > (copies may be duplicated for public release without charge)
>>
>> Meyer wrote that right after he was found guilty of fraud and ordered
>> to repay a couple of his victims $25,000. He was scared that the
>> outcome of the trial would prompt more of his victims to seek redress,
>> so he wove a rather elaborate story to try to convince them that their
>> money was safe...
>>
>> Evidently you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
>
>
>I just posted it.
>Meyer's statement is his own.
And you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
>Were you EVER in Meyer's presence?
Your phrasing "in his presence" indicates veneration for the man, as
if he were a saint. You didn't "meet him" or "spend time with him".
You were "in his presence". That is how cult members refer to their
cult leader.
This shows just how total Meyer's control was, and is, over your
pea-sized brain.
>Did you interview his witnesses?
Not formal interviews, but I chatted with a bunch.
>Do you know the people he knew at Wright Patterson AFB?
I know a lot of people at Wright Patt. In fact, I've done work there
every couple weeks for the past several years (I go back tomorrow.).
>Do you know who introduced Gilvesy to Meyer?
Nope.
>Do you know or have you met any of the people who worked with and
>assisted Meyer?
Yep.
>Did you ever see his cell in operation?
Yep.
>How is it you think a person would spend thousands of dollars and
>thousands of hours writing patents and filing them nationally and
>internationaly on an "invention that will never work" and that is
>"only a "scam?"
Stanley Meyer lived in a fantasy world. He was incapable of telling
where reality left off and fantasy begain. He loved demonstrating his
water fuel cell, but he always had a reason why we coulen't take our
own measurements. He always had a reason why it wasn't ready to go
commercial. He lied to everybody around him for so many years that he
fell for his own lies.
When he was found guilty, he was truly flabbergasted. He couldn't
understand why he was found guilty. The only thing he could come up
with was sabotage and conflict of interest on the judge's part.
Note that these things were never brought up during the depositions or
trial. Meyer thought of them afterward. Claims of sabotage and
conflict of interest would have stopped the proceedings cold. They
were never mentioned until several weeks after the trial.
>To what other planet does one escape after they get the "millions"
>they "scam" from people?
Planet Meyer. No escape was necessary -- he was already there.
>Why didn't the judge order Meyer to "Cease and Desist'" his funding
>scheme if he was such a "fraud?"
>Why was he only fined ONE DOLLAR?
Meyer was ordered to return $25,000 to the investors who took him to
court. The other investors, like you, were certain he was legit, so
they never went after him. Judge Corzine went easy on him because it
was clear Meyer was mentally ill.
And Meyer *was* issued a cease and desist order. He never solicited
any more "investments" after the trial because of that.
Here, let me get you started: "Liar!"
RadicalModerate
By "put up" meaning publishing everything needed to build a Meyer Gas
Generator - a full parts list, bill of materials, fully dimensioned
engineering drawings and documentation so anyone can build and test
the device.
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Don Lancaster
> It's time for the Meyer advocates to put up or shut up.
> By "put up" meaning publishing everything needed to build a Meyer Gas
> Generator - a full parts list, bill of materials, fully dimensioned
> engineering drawings and documentation so anyone can build and test
> the device.
>
>
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
> It's time for the Meyer advocates to put up or shut up.
> By "put up" meaning publishing everything needed to build a Meyer Gas
> Generator - a full parts list, bill of materials, fully dimensioned
> engineering drawings and documentation so anyone can build and test
> the device.
>
You can do your own from this.
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
> Till: ted.zet...@va.itv.se
> Ämne: Frequencies
> Datum: den 23 mars 1999 21:35
>
If he want to make a separation with this very
low frequency and a sine wave I think he need
some mechanical equipment for doing that. A
tuning fork or something. Our technology is not
so good as we think. Some musicians still use
electronic tubes in theirs amplifiers.
It's also possible he need one more frequency.
(620, 630, xxxx). I never heard about the Keely
book, can you ask him where I can buy the book.
Hes idea is interesting but it's not the way
Stanley's system work. It's also other system
looking similar but has not much in common if
you take a closer look. (Puharich etc.)
I only use one frequency and a square wave.
For making this pulses I only use one simple
IC, National MM74C132(4xNAND with smithtrigger)
and a MOS-transistor Siliconix VN46AF.
The MM-series is special designed for replacing
circuits from the older 74-serie. It has an
ordinary CMOS input and an output capacity
for driving the more current consuming standard
74-serie.
The MM74C132 has a smith trigger function
so you only need one resistor from output to
input and a capacitor from the same input to
the ground for making a good oscillator.
The output from the oscillator goes to a 100 ohm
resistor connected to the gate on the VN46AF.
This will make a good square wave with fast
switching and make the circuit rich in harmonics.
I make the circuit adjustable between 10-15.000Hz
and gating about 10 pulses/cycle.
............................
Someone PLEASE tell these morons that the CHARGE
of an electron is DISTINCT and SEPARATE from its MASS,
and that one can be applied without the other passing -
this is simple quantum physics, and is the basis of an entire branch
of science called scalar electrostatics, which is VERY REAL, and being
applied not only in Stan's devices, but elsewhere. The fact that these
morons don't know anything about it is no excuse fro their stupidity.
Electron CHARGE is capable of doing WORK without exchange of its MASS.
PERIOD.
