Author Topic: Stanley Meyer a fraud?  (Read 11417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4636
    • water structure and science
Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« on: September 21, 2011, 10:53:59 am »
Sunday Times Innovation 1 Dec. 96 (

End  of road for car that ran on Water 

American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud. 
Report by Tony Edwards 

It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer and 
his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict. 

The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a 
pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the 
dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water 
Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge. 
It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not 
work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships", 
offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech- 
nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From 
domestic boilers to cars and aircraft. 
 But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn 
and sued Meyer to get their money back. 
Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell was a truly 
revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent 
gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional 
electrolysis.  The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very 
high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular 
bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat- 
er", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since 
the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the bat- 
tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo. 

Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on 
water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed 
water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a 
succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly 
converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen  and oxygen that could be 
combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary 
petrol engine. 
One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael  Laughton, professor 
of electrical engineering at Queen  Mary and Westfield University, London, 
but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had  known about our 
visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why 
the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate  it," said 
However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water 
Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in 
the recent lawsuit. 
The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a 
transparent cylinder of water inside which  was a core of stainless steel 
electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell  bubbled away 
merrily, producing apparently copious amounts  of gas that Meyer ignited   
through a welding torch.To the layman it was an  impressive performance and 
hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert 
witnesses in court. 
They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and 
that it was  simply  using conventional electrolysis. 
Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay 
the investors their $25,000 (£15,000). 

( Any views ? ) 

..Every breadth we draw, every step we take, every thought we think, 
every sound or word we utter and the aeons of grief and oceans of tears 
we've shed for our needs or the secret exquisite pleasures, ease and 
security we seek 
we owe them all to our father cosmos & sun and earth mother ! 
Who else ?. Isn’t this all we are and every thing that is and will ever be ? 
Animated tail chasing star dust !; matter spirit energy yin yang dance ! 
(Probably the gist of a partly remembered translation of a Vedic hymn ) 

    Reply to author
        Report spam

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2011, 22:43:46 pm »
This is from a Stan Meyer document titled WFC public notice to inform, it explains the whole court case.

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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25.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.

I don't believe Meyer was a fraud, I do believe that there are many out there who would like us to believe such, after all, it's in thier best interests...
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 09:55:01 am by HMS-776 »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4636
    • water structure and science
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2011, 00:19:54 am »


So the recording equipment of the court was simply not working that day?
That sounds like somekind of on purpose, is it not?


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2011, 09:47:54 am »
The people who sued Meyer were hell bent on discredtiting him.
I really think the whole thing was about revenge.

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.

If you read the first part of the WFC Public notice to inform you'll find the story about Rick Schneider, I have included it below.
EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS AND THE POST ABOVE FROM THE WFC PUBLIC NOTICE TO INFORM, it is worth the time. It explains the whole court case in a way which is obvious as to what was really going on.
The Rick Schneider Affair[/q]
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.[/c]


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4636
    • water structure and science
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2011, 11:18:59 am »
Wow, those man have a nasty track record!

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3922
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2011, 17:44:52 pm »
Meyer in any moment assumed to be a fraud. This is much important. He simply was not willing to explain the technology to prove he was right and maybe was taking more time than expected by the investors. The system is so simple that if he simply explained the working parts and its functions become obvious for one with basic science knowledge.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2011, 22:10:37 pm »
Would it matter if he was fraud?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4636
    • water structure and science
Re: Stanley Meyer a fraud?
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2011, 00:36:11 am »
Would it matter if he was fraud?

It would mean that many of us have spend their private money on something that never could work.....
But thats just my opinion...