Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482252
  • *Total Topics: 14218
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 180
  • *Total: 188

Facebook

Author Topic: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally  (Read 22123 times)

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7770
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« on: March 16, 2009, 03:18:58 PM »
Hi All,

a while ago I met over here in Berlin with a friend, who had worked for for 2-3 years together with Stay Meyer
and he told me, that the court case was indeed staged and setup by the bad lawyer and thus Meyer was convicted
innocently.

As he is pretty busy with other things right now, he wants to stay annonymously, but I will
meet him again soon and get more informations.

Here are his statements:


In regards to Stanley Meyer:

Because there has been so much controversy around Stan, his inventions and circumstances of his death I would just briefly like to set the record straight based on my observations.

I was a co-worker with Stan for about 2-3 years and had the opportunity to see his devices and was present when he did his public demonstrations.  He definitely had working prototypes that did what he said they did, I witnessed this many, many times first hand.

There was also very high level negotiations between Stan and representatives of different governments. In reference to what happened with the court-case against Stan, in my opinion this was set up so to make him look as a fraud. I was personally available at the courthouse in Ohio together with others that worked very closely with Stan to represent his defense. What happened was that the lawyer representing Stan did not let any of us take the witness stand. Stan was told from his lawyer that this was not necessary.

However, after loosing his case and asking the judge what happened he was told that he did not have any witnesses in his behalf and this was the main reason why he lost his case. This greatly angered Stan since he knew we had all travelled to be at the court house for his defense and not been called in. He now realized that his lawyer had not had his best interests in mind.

As far as his death is concerned I can not tell since I was not there at the time, however, I did know this: Prior to what happened at the restaurant Stan had changed his diet radically for some years prior and had recently got a clean bill of health from his doctor, especially in regards to his blood pressure and heart.

=================
So far his eye wittness report to set the record straight.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline dankie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2009, 03:35:42 PM »
Absolutely ... The "mafia" staged everything . I also talked to a few townfolks who knew him , everything is true , most important inventor of the century , only water can save us .

And his VIC's work ...

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=924&highlight=delrin

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=925&highlight=recollections


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2009, 05:18:10 PM »
Quite unbelievable…

Stefan, you’ll have to enlighten me here as to why you locked-out that thread.  Am I not allowed an opinion…  are you seriously censoring my opinion?

I’m somewhat dumfounded. You allow all manner of foul-mouthed idiots to continually post nonsense, then just when there is finally some intelligent discussion on the forum you decide to lock-out the thread. It beggars belief…why do that?

Have you even actually read the whole thread?

Clearly I’ve created a few ripples, but you’re title is forum moderator… not God Almighty!

I must conclude that you are either a very niave person, have your own personal agenda or worse still, you’re in someone’s pocket!

So much for the ‘freedom of speech’!

I know, I’m banned… your loss.

Offline alan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2009, 07:51:01 PM »
banned?
pointless

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan3.html

If your friend worked 2-3 years with Stan, let's hope he'll tell more than just about the case.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 08:19:15 PM by alan »


Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5733
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2009, 08:08:47 PM »
Stefan

WOW ,a golden opportunity !!

Thank you

Chet

Please no bans [Yet]

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2009, 08:08:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7770
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2009, 09:15:14 PM »
Quite unbelievable…




Farrah Day, last warning !
Don´t spread your misinformation here  !

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7770
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2009, 09:16:40 PM »
I am copying the text from:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan3.html

over here, in case the other page will go down( as Angelfire account are not too reliable..):


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 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 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 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.

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 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 .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.

>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. 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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2009, 09:16:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lostcauses10x

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2009, 12:27:04 AM »
Interesting reading. I do believe Stan got coned, and a lot of what I am reading is the paranoid results of that act.

LOL a charge of only $1 in punitive damages shows the Judge believed he got coned also. He may not have believed in the item worked, yet he new more was going on with this action than met the eye.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 12:54:39 AM by lostcauses10x »

Offline AhuraMazda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2009, 12:40:49 AM »
Farrah Day, last warning !
Don´t spread your misinformation here  !

Stefan
There are a lot of people who don't know the difference between "VOLT" and "Liters"! You could start by first getting rid of them.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7770
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2009, 12:35:16 AM »
Stefan
There are a lot of people who don't know the difference between "VOLT" and "Liters"! You could start by first getting rid of them.

Well, better have some people who don´t know this difference, but who actually do experiments and stumble onto new
effects, than to have people, who post misinformation and twist the facts and are
not doing any experimentation work themself.

I just deleted a lot of offtopic postings in this thread and I will
close it now, cause the record about Stan Meyer is set straight now.

Regards, Stefan.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Stan Meyer case , setting it straight finally
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2009, 12:35:16 AM »
Sponsored links:




 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: