This blog became necessary as a result of the use of clandestine censorship on the Internet to deceive the worldwide microhydro community

Everyone mentioned by name on this site is invited to comment or respond to the postings.
If anyone feels that something said here is untrue or unfair, they are invited to post their comments on this site.

This blog became necessary as a result of clandestine censorship on the Internet.
It is an antidote to the denial of freedom of speech, right to respond to public accusations, and the general unfairness, which has been practiced on us. In other words, I do not want to do unto others as has been done to me.

This blog is also also similar to wikileaks in that it reveals truth regarding wrongdoing which has been practised and deliberately concealed by powerful individuals and organizations. It reveals the turning of a blind eye by individuals who claim to be committed to the truth.

As much as possible I have tried to present the emails exchanges as documents on their own, and to minimize my comments and observations, leaving it to the reader to form their own point of view.

Photo of Peter Ruyter with Guns

When asked for proof of his right to claim ownership of the Turgo design, as the law requires, he would send insults and threats and a photo of himself with guns.

And Kunzler refused to accept this proof from you?

Monday, December 13, 2010 6:42 PM

From:

"Joseph Hartvigsen"

View contact details

To:

"davis ron"

Cc:

"Peter Ruyter"

Yes you are correct that Brian was not interested in 1-4. However it is also correct that items 1-4 are in fact true. I was prepared to discuss the situation and show or obtain whatever degree of documentation might be necessary, though you yourself have 2-3 directly from Peter over the years. Further you have seen a signed handwritten note regarding 1. Did you want it witnessed and notarized in Swedish? For item 4 there is only one way to see that and that is to go to Sweden. It is a private business record. If that is in fact not true it is none of your business, but would be a matter between Ingella and Peter alone. However since 4 is true and easily verified you were invited to Sweden to view private business documents. What more did you want? I think the financial terms that were offered by Peter and me for your visit were highly generous and conciliatory.

What I would dispute below is 5. I did not threaten you for years. As far as I recall there was one email where I mentioned that such a recourse was available if you chose to keep harassing us over this issue. Further, this only came to the attention of the microhydro group because of your bogus alias postings threatening to "expose" our supposed injustice to you. We had no choice but to respond with our side of the story.

We're still awaiting a shred of evidence that Ron Davis, Otto Rike, K. D. Lee, Poco Baya, Abuelo Che, or Austin Baines actually exists and is not the alias of some fugitive from justice. Won't that be rich irony when we uncover the truth that whoever you are is in fact a fugitive from justice, after years of enduring your vile blasts of calumny?

---

From: davis ron
To: h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com
Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 4:16:15 PM
Subject: And Kunzler refused to accept this proof from you?

So you are telling me that you came to the Dec.23, 09 meeting with Kunzler offering proof that my turbines were "illegal". This would include 1.proof of the existence of your Swedish widow Ingela Carlson, whom for five years you and Ruyter have told the membrship of the Internet Yahoo microhydro group I am cheating out of "royalty" payments, 2. proof of your "exclusive right to produce" this turgo design, as you told the group you had, 3. authorization by Ruyter to collect royalty payments from me, as you publicly claimed, 4. proof of Peter Ruyter´s legal ownership of the turgo design, 5.and proof to support for your four years of threats to have my turbines banned from the U.S. All of which you have claimed mant times could be presented in a court of law? And Kunzler refused to accept thisproof from you? --- On Mon, 12/13/10, Joseph Hartvigsen wrote: From: Joseph Hartvigsen Subject: Re: The Bottom Line for Internet Fraudsters To: "davis ron" Date: Monday, December 13, 2010, 5:55 PM "In my meeting with Mr. Hartvigsen, I explained that the existence of the widow was of no consequence," Yes, so he was not interested in any evidence of her existence and as far as I was concerned the only relevance to you is that you use this to justify your position that we had lied about her existence. "as they have no proprietary rights absent patents, which they do not hold. Even if they did, they would have to hold them in the all countries they are trying to preclude sales in." Have I ever said there was a patent? As far as I know the only relevant patent was Gilkes which expired long ago. The issue we had was your direct replication using the orangespoon as a mold form. Did I not post examples of others making similar parts that were not direct copies? It was never discussed a turgo concept invention claim, only a copyright issue by using the part as the form for making other parts. "He did not establish her existence, nor did I see a license agreement. Again, both are irrelevant." How plain can he be. He was not interested in this. It was irrelevant to him as far as the law was concerned. "Copyright law does not cover what they are doing." This was counter to what I'd referred you to on copyrights.gov You never gave any counter reference. I followed his reference suggestions and found that in the US Brian's assertion is how the courts rule. In other countries using a copyright article (drawing, set of plans, widget) to make a copy IS considered a violation. So this is a gray area outside the US. Still I posted this information as you requested. "He agreed to let it drop if you would. If he continues to cause you a loss of business by claiming a proprietary right that does not exist, he is committing a business tort and is opening himself up to a law suit." I have been trying to drop this for years and years. When will you drop it? Am I still claiming a "proprietary right that does not exist"? I don't think so. If you think so please explain what I am doing to make you say that. Joe

Hartvigsen: "Anyway, I think the answer is no, you don't have that right".

Hartvigsen: "Anyway, I think the answer is no, you don't have that right".
Nov. 10, 2010


From: Joseph Hartvigsen
To: davis ron
Sent: Wed, November 10, 2010 9:47:53 PM
Subject: Re: Hartvigsen and Ruyter--Do you deny that I have always had an absolute right to demand that you present proof to support your public claims that my Watermotor turbines are illegal?
And that you had a legal obligation to provide that proof?

Ron,
I think there is a disconnect on the standard of proof. I've repeatedly outlined the facts that any "original expression fixed in a tangible medium" is copyright without filing. I've given you the U.S. Government documents stating as such (circ01.pdf from copyrights.gov) The spoons exist, therefor there is a copyright. The identity of their creator was known and obvious to everyone except you, as being the historical source of the spoons and later his heir and her assignee (Peter). Do you have a legal right to demand dated drawings and invoices for the original spoons I've created? It is possible that such documentation never existed if someone designed from their head and built with their own hands. Anyway, I think the answer is no, you don't have that right. It should be obvious as there has never been any other primary source for these items. The same logic applies to the spoons from Sweden.

And, as I keep saying since talking to Brian it is all moot given the legal interpretation given to functional items that the copyright only protects the appearance and brand sort of issues and not the function. Further, we never were going after you. You were going after us and we were defending our position for having asked in the first place. That has always been clearly articulated in public postings in response to your badgering. You have also had a long standing invitation to go view the original documents. There is no legal responsibility to deliver any such proof to your doorstep.

So, when do you want to see this proof you are so insistent on seeing? As we keep saying, if you want to see the proof go visit Peter but there is no obligation for us to go to Bolivia to show you and there is no way you get your own copies of private documents.

When do you want to go? The evidence provided yesterday should be sufficient to give you expectation of seeing what you seek when you arrive in Sweden.

Joe


From: davis ron
To: Joseph Hartvigsen
Sent: Wed, November 10, 2010 4:24:18 PM
Subject: Re: Hartvigsen and Ruyter--..I have always had an absolute right to demand that you present proof..

Joe
This is a central point:

Do you deny that I have always had an absolute right to demand that you present proof to support your public claims that my Watermotor turbines are illegal?
And that you had a legal obligation to provide that proof?



Joseph Hartvigsen, ceramatec, brian kunzler lawyer, extortion, fraud, Internet fraud, sweden, IP rights, turgo design, watermotor, wim klunne, corruption, IP law, Swedish police, bolivia

Unjust enrichment--definition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.^[1]

Definition:
1.n. a benefit by mistake or chance. Morally and ethically the one who gains a benefit that he or she has not paid or worked for should not keep it to the rightful owner's detriment. The party that received money, services or property that should have been delivered to or belonged to another must make restitution to the rightful owner. A court may order such restitution in a lawsuit brought by the party who should rightly have the money or property. ^[2].

2. n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another's expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. ^[3]
-

fraud, hartvigsen hydro, brian kunzler, watermotor, peter ruyter, cargo and kraft, sweden, ceramatec, coorstek, turgo turbine, alternarive energy, h-hydro, extortion

Extortion--Elements of Offense

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim's property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted.

Criminal Fraud.... What is "fraud"? Legislated definitions are too complicated so here are three simple explanations expressed in different ways.

Criminal Fraud....

What is "fraud"? Legislated definitions are too complicated so here are three simple explanations expressed in different ways.

1. "All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling (disguising, concealing), and any unfair way which another is cheated." [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition]

2. "Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability. [Duhaime's Online Legal Dictionary]

3. "Lying and stealing and cheating for gain"

Nando responds to Hartvigsen's retraction of fraudulent copyright claims, June 4, 2010

e: Hartvigsen: "I am willing to post that I was wrong on the copyright issue if you want bring this up again....

From:	Nando ... View Contact
To:	mjgnecco@aprotec.com.co; c.glasspool@verizon.net; georgegetz@bellsouth.net; maggie@fogartyfamily.org; nwgpa@yahoo.com; idaminer40@yahoo.com; idaminer@live.com; davis ron

---

I was cleaning my PC and had suspended some mail rules at the moment that RON DAVIS sent this message -- unhappily it came in !!!.

Ron Davis has been blocked for many moons due to instable mind and behavior

It is time that RON stop this nonsense -- that periodically occurs like a woman menstrual period or every time he tries to sell a turbine and fails.

I am in this ENDLESS loop because I have not accepted his behavior when I was in the middle, assisting Joe Hartvigsen that was sending some items to him and even planning to go to Bolivia and visit him to show him how to build and design a good Turbine and than the one he has.-- trip I canceled when learned of his behavior and dishonesty-- which placed me as a target for his attacks .

Dishonesty has been clearly demonstrated when he failed to deliver either the money paid for two turbines or the money returned to the senders GINNEE & FELIPE HANCOCK , in Costa Rica that up to today they have not being able to install a (new never arrived) Turbine to have some electricity -- I checked with Ginnee to make sure if the money was returned -- Ginnee will report via the MicroHydro group if such occurs.

The list of emails from Ron's message is one that Ron thinks that the owners of them are backing him -- I hope that all of you do question him and ask explicity these points -- because others have tried to get a response from him and No answers have been forthcoming .

Also, he has said the Wim the micro hydro gorup owner has NOT allowed him to defend himself, the TRUE FACT is that he has NOT done so, he ask questions unrelated to the necessary statement he needs to say - and directly demonstrate that he has returned the money or sent the two turbine to Ginnee and Felipe Hancock in Costa Rica .

Pestering Ginnee so often that she stops using an email address -- attacking her and demanding to declare world wide that RON DAVIS is an honest and reliable person -- and so ON and ON.

Sending a long mail filled with garbage specially his writing that do not show any basis or footings to have a truth in them.

I call on those that are, as well, plastered periodically with his messages to either tell him to stop sending to you those senseless messages or to show that he is right or to recognize his error and correct his dishonesty.

Nando

Hartvigsen Announces Takeover of Turgo Design : "Basically, the spoons are orphans that Peter found and we adopted". Nov. 7, 02

Hartvigsen Announces Takeover of Turgo Design : "Basically, the spoons are orphans that Peter found and
we adopted". Nov. 7, 02

November 7, 2002

At 13:33 02/10/30 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Ron,
I look forward to your dyno data. The only good
numbers I have
are for the combination of turbine and generator
being 50%
efficient using a 1/3 hp DC brush type motor and a
9/32" nozzle
with about 50' of head. These aren't really ideal
conditions.
The motor was much larger than needed for the output.
The
nozzle much smaller than ideal for the blue spoons.
I'd really
like to see numbers with something like a 1/2" nozzle
and
a direct measurement on the turbine rather than
electric output.

I'll look at the return address on the spoon mailers
for an
address for Ingela Carlsson. Peter said she is about
2 hrs north
of him "in the woods". I have a postcard note from
her that
came in one of the shipments here in my briefcase,
but it
doesn't have an address. I asked Peter if she had any
design
info, or the injection molding die, or test data,
etc. He has asked
and she doesn't. Her husband died something like 10
years before
Peter met her. She and her sons don't want to have
anything
to do with it as they blame his heart attack on his
hydro obsession.
Basically, the spoons are orphans that Peter found and
we adopted.
Joe

Peter Ruyter's Invitation to Sweden, Sept 4, 2010

Flag this message
Visit to Sweden
Saturday, September 4, 2010 2:46 AM
From:
"Peter Ruyter"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"davis ron"
Ron,
we are back from the boatingtripp in arcipelagor now ,and I say as I says for years ago, over and over again, you are welcome to visit us and together we will visit Carlson and read our companybooks. That is same as I have told all funny guys you have leaded to me. At the nearest time I have to go to hospital for a minor recovery operation.o and k
This is direct from me to you.o and k

PR