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.

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

Hartvigsen's Internet War on the Watermotor-How it worked.

Hartvigsen began his War on the Watermotor on Dec.12, 05, with the help of Wim Klunne, list owner of the Yahoo microhydro group. (microhydropower.net)

It was very simple---Hartvigsen tells the membership that my turbines are "illegal" because, according to him, his partner in Sweden, Peter Ruyter, owns the turgo turbine design we use in our Watermotors, and that I refuse to pay them "royalties".

Wim Klunne knows very well that Hartvigsen has been making this claim for years without proof, as the law requires.
But what he does is to prevent me from making any reply.
Of course the membership does not realize he is doing this. Members demand that I reply to the charges.
In fact, Klunne even assures the membership that he WILL allow me to reply.
Then privately tells me he will not.
Later the membership is assured I WAS allowed to reply.
My apparent non-response is held up to them as proof of guilt. Hartvigsen and Klunne have been doing this for five years.

The following is pretty typical of how the Yahoo microhydro group site has been deliberately and consistently used to destroy our Watermotor project.
This particular Hartvigsen inspired tirade against me goes on until Nov. 7 th 09.

A little over a month after these massages were posted, (Dec. 23, 09) Hartvigsen met with a Patent Attorney, Brian Kunzler, in Salt Lake City. We hired Brian to receive the proof of turgo design ownership Hartvigsen had been telling the Yahoo microhydro group he had.
He was going to prove the old lady in Sweden he has being telling everyone he has collecting funds for really exists. And that he had an exclusive license to produce these turbine runners.

This is the proof of turgo design ownership was what he had been threatening to turn over to the U.S. Customs service since Dec.8, o6, in order to prevent my Watermotors from being imported into the U.S. This is what he what he had o show as proof for my clients he has told that my turbines are illegal.

Big Surprise.

Neither he nor Peter Ruyter had anything whatsoever to present to the lawyer to support their claims. They are simply con men acting with the help of Wim Klunne.
But they have gone right on making these claims, and Wim Klunne is going right on allowing them to do so on the Yahoo microhydro site.
See Below.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/microhydro/message/11719



hartvigsen, fraud, kunzler, ruyter, sweden, micro hydro, ceramatec, wim klunne, bolivia, turgo turbine, swedish patent office, joseph hartvigsen, wim klunne, yahoo microhydro group,

Ceramatec's Joshi heads Matheson donation list, Oct. 8, 2010

---

Matheson has loyal following of individual donors

By Matt Canham

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: September 5, 2010 12:00AM
Updated: October 8, 2010 01:37PM

philantrophy day 2 magid 11/1/07 Norma Matheson, left, and Barbara Pioli at Utah Philantrophy Day awards ceremony. magid photo

Washington • Rep. Jim Matheson is by far the biggest fundraiser among Utah’s three House members, representing a district that is often competitive. While he raises most of his money from political action committees run by business groups, unions and politicians, he still has a small core of committed individual donors.

The Salt Lake Tribune analyzed contributions from each of Matheson’s six House elections to determine which families rank among his top 10 contributors of all time. These loyal supporters, some of whom are quite wealthy, are limited by federal rules on how much they can give. PACs can donate $5,000 per election (convention, primary and general), while individuals can contribute $2,400 per election.

1. Ashok and Surekha Joshi

Ceramatec

Total contributions • $33,644

Matheson’s top contributors run a company that has benefited from federal earmarks secured with the congressman’s help. It’s hard to tell if their ties go beyond this. The Joshis did not return calls seeking comment.

They run Ceramatec, a Utah company that develops new uses for ceramics, including biofuels and the delivery of pain medication. Matheson has helped the company secure at least three earmarks in recent years, including a $1.6 million defense grant in 2008. Matheson hasn’t sponsored an earmark for the company in the past two years.

Back in 2008, Ashok Joshi told The Tribune he contributes for two reasons: his wife is a supporter and he hoped the contributions would help get federal funds.

“I also feel that appropriations have politics behind [them], so naturally I want my representatives to fight to get the money to Utah,” he said.

Matheson said he met the Joshis at a House party during his first campaign. “They appreciated my approach and supported me ever since.”

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

The Joshis have contributed $10,600 to Matheson so far this election cycle. The couple have also donated to other federal officials, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, but in much smaller amounts. When contributions from all Ceramatec executives are combined, the company has contributed nearly $45,000 to Matheson since he first ran for office.

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 letter to editor of Mormon Magazine, Sunstone Sept.25, 06

Hartvigsen to Dan Wotherspoon, editor of Sunstone, Mormon Magazine


Flag this messageRe: Fwd: Re: Re: Impersonating an LDS BishopMonday, September 25, 2006 2:50 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Joseph Hartvigsen" Add sender to Contacts To: "Dan Wotherspoon" Cc: "davis ron" , rrees@utah.govDan,
Ron has forwarded your comments to me. I don't know how you know Ron,
perhaps he has just emailed with some sensational claims as he has last
week to a deseret news reporter. Anyway contrary to his claims I did
not ask that this be brought to my bishop, rather Ron insisted, and as
I had nothing to hide I agreed. The Robert Rees in question is Bishop
of the Highlands Ward, Kaysville UT Haight Creek stake, and is an
employee (attorney with the legislature) of the State of Utah (hence a
utah.gov email adress). Anyone familiar with the church can easily
verify this. Think about it, why would I use an official government
address to fake a response from a church leader? Ron accuses me of
faking the email and impersonating someone else, which I have not done,
while he has on at least two occasions posted "questions" about me
using bogus contrived identities.

The supposed misdeeds in question center on his lack of understanding
of intelectual property laws.

1. He asked me to have my employer evaluate an invention of his which
we did at considerable expense to the company. In the process we made
some improvements. The company's owner offered to bear the cost to
patent and market the invention in exchange for a generous royalty (~4x
what we get when we license our technology to someone else). What threw
Ron was that the owner detailed that the patent would include our
improvements, and hence would list Ron as primary inventors and those
who added as co-inventors. Patent law requires all inventors be (an
inventor being based on the originator of material covered in any
patent claim, hence if other people made improvements or additions
which require additional caims they are co-inventors) listed or the
patent can be invalidated.

He sees this as an attempt to steal his invention, when it only
strengthens it. Due to his irrational response, the company dropped it
and told him to do what he wanted to do with it alone. We lost money,
he still has what he had to start with. The company has not and will
not ever do anything more with the idea.

2. I sold Ron a water turbine blade that I received from a fellow in
Sweden. Ron copied it. He didn't just copying the idea, he used the
part to form a mold to make identical replicas. The fellow (now a
business partner) in Sweden requested that I collect from Ron a $2/part
royalty. Ron doesn't think we have the right to do so. We dropped the
issue 5-6 years ago but he brought it up in public a few months back so
we addressed it. It is true that there is no patent, so the general
idea is not protected. The actual part (as "an original expression
fixed in a tangible medium") is protected without filing under US
copyright laws for the life of the creator + 75 years. The creator died
some 10 years ago, and his widow sold the rights to my partner in
Sweden. Tracing the rights is as simple as following the parts. The
person who is now the only source in the world of these parts is also
the one controlling the copyright. Ron claims it is fraudulent to
request a royalty.

So Ron will vigorously defend his IP (against a proposed cooperative
venture for an improved product) while trampling that of others. His
harrassment, were he here in the US, could land him in court. As he has
no assets of note and lives in Bolivia he feels he can do what he wants
without recourse. I really don't want anything from him except to leave
me alone.

I have not done anything illegal, immoral or even unkind in my dealings
with Ron. In both cases I've just tried to help him and have received
nothing but trouble in return. I have not used my religion to gain his
trust. My religion is a big part of who I am and so it was part of our
discussions before Ron's paranoia got the worst of him.

I really don't know how to end this so Ron will quit harrassing me,
you, Bishop Rees, and others.

Joe



--- davis ron wrote:
>
>
> --- Dan Wotherspoon wrote:
>
> > From: "Dan Wotherspoon"
> > To: "davis ron"
> > Subject: Re: Re: Impersonating an LDS Bishop
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:09:22 -0600
> >
> > The name Robert Rees is certainly not uncommon.
> > From the response of the
> > Bob Rees I know, he certainly isn't surprised that
> > someone living in Utah
> > might have his name. This won't be a matter he'd
> > want to get involved with,
> > so I won't be forwarding you his email address.
> >
> > From the context of It seems to me that you are of
> > the impression that the
> > title of "bishop" is similar in scope in Mormonism
> > as it is in Catholicism.
> > This isn't the case. Mormonism has a lay
> > priesthood, and every LDS "ward"
> > (congregation) has a bishop. And there are tens of
> > thousands of wards in
> > the world, and the role of bishop rotates to another
> > person every five years
> > or so. So, for instance, my friend Bob Rees was
> > once in the role of bishop
> > but hasn't served in that capacity for twenty years
> > or so. Hence your
> > assumptions about this being alarming and surpise
> > over what you see as a
> > lack of response, if it is indeed a case of
> > impersonation, are a bit
> > overinflated. This isn't like a Catholic bishop who
> > is even higher in the
> > hierarchy than a priest. LDS bishops receive no
> > theological training and do
> > not draw a salary, they are simply volunteers who
> > have agreed to lead a
> > congregation for a few years. Certainly they
> > counsel and on occasion
> > administer things like Church discipline, but
> > typically they are just good
> > guys trying their best to help members of their ward
> > feel connected and
> > engaged and grow spiritually.
> >
> > I really don't know the issues in your complaint
> > against this person or your
> > associate who wanted this person to arbitrate your
> > disagreement, but it
> > seems to me that you should just go to a civil
> > authority instead. If your
> > associate is using his supposed "faithful Mormon
> > insider" status to defraud
> > people, prosecute the hell out of him for the fraud.
> > Trading on Mormon
> > belief and touting one's piety is indeed immoral,
> > and I'm hoping there's a
> > special kind of torment for such folks who do so
> > with the intention of
> > gaining undeserved trust, but it seems to me best to
> > bring it to the courts
> > and realm of public discourse so this person will be
> > exposed and won't be
> > able to use that kind of leverage again.
> >
> > Good luck,
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "davis ron"
> > To: ;
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Impersonating an LDS Bishop
> >
> >
> > > Sept. 25, 06
> > >
> > > Hello Dan,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your response. I'm sure that you
> > > are very busy.
> > > I would like to communicate directly with bishop
> > > Rees in order to provide him with information
> > > regarding this matter so he can bring charges
> > against
> > > the individual impersonating him. May I please
> > have
> > > his e-mail address?
> > > I'm sure the LDS Church would be very interested
> > as
> > > well. Or at least, I hope so. Who should I write
> > to?
> > >
> > > I am certainly owed an explanation. Do you not
> > agree?
> > > Mainly, I want to make sure that the authentic
> > > Bishop Rees had no part whatsoever in this matter.
> > > I have been very surprised at the lack of
> > response.
> > > Perhaps this kind of thing happens more often than
> > I
> > > could have possibly imagined.
> > >
> > > All the best, and thank you again,
> > >
> > > Ron Davis
> > > Campo Nuevo,
> > > La Paz, Bolivia
> > > 591 2 2493646, 591 71527700
> > > watermotor.net
> > >
> > > --- Dan Wotherspoon
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ron,
> > >>
> > >> I'm running a magazine and a small, overreaching
> > >> non-profit organization
> > >> Sorry, I just don't have time to get involved. I
> > >> hesitated to even reply in
> > >> the first place but the mention of the name of a
> > >> friend sent me into it only
> > >> as far as whether it was him or not.
> > >>
> > >> Surely you have a friend in the US who has a
> > stake
> > >> in the issues related to
> > >> your dispute and would make the inquiries for you
> > at
> > >> LDS headquarters about
> > >> who the bishop is for a person living at that
> > >> address.
> > >>
> > >> Best of luck,
> > >> Dan Wotherspoon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "davis ron"
> > >> To: "Dan Wotherspoon"
> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:29 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: Impersonating an LDS Bishop
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Dan,
> > >> > I don't know if I mentioned that I am in South
> > >> > America.
> > >> >
> > >> > Hartvigsen's address is:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1529 South 400 East
> > >> > Kaysville, UT 84037 USA
> > >> >
> > >> > Does that help?
> > >> > Ron
> > >> >
> > >> > --- Dan Wotherspoon
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> My guess is there are about two dozen or more
> > LDS
> > >> >> bishops in Kaysville,
> > >> >> Utah. You'll need to find out the exact name
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> >> ward this guy is
> > >> >> pretending to be the bishop of. With that
> > name
> > >> in
> > >> >> hand, you can either call
> > >> >> the LDS Church headquarters to get the name
> > and
> > >> >> phone number of the real
> > >> >> bishop of that ward (240-1000 is their general
> > >> >> information line, which can
> > >> >> direct you to the right department for that
> > info)
> > >> or
> > >> >> simply look it up in
> > >> >> the white pages under Church of Jesus Christ
> > of
> > >> >> Latter-day Saints, then find
> > >> >> the Kaysville stake this ward is in, then
> > you'll
> > >> see
> > >> >> listings of each ward
> > >> >> below that.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I wrote to Bob Rees in California when you
> > first
> > >> >> mentioned his name. He
> > >> >> wrote the following back:
> > >> >>
>
=== message truncated ===

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

Robert H. Rees:" I am the bishop....of the local unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" July 6, 05

Robert H. Rees:" I am the bishop....of the local unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" July 6, 05
From: Robert Rees
Subject: Re: Hartvigsen
To: watermotor@yahoo.com
Cc: jjh@ceramatec.com
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2005, 6:25 PM

Mr. Davis,

Thank you for your email messages regarding the apparent dispute between you and Joseph Hartvigsen. I am the bishop or ecclestiastical leader of the local unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mr. Hartvigsen is a member. I wish I were in a position to be able to help resolve your dispute. However, the Church's disciplinary council system is designed to assist a member of the Church who has engaged in conduct contrary to Church teachings to repent and return to good standing. It is not intended to resolve disputes between individuals. I have known Mr. Hartvigsen for roughly 13 years. He is an upstanding and honorable person and has not done anything of which I am aware to put his standing in the Church in question. He turned to me in apparent frustration over not being successful in his efforts to resolve the dispute with you. But there is really nothing I can do to help. I wish you well.

Sincerely,

Bob Rees

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

Hartvigsen: No intention of explaining to group why no proof... Aug.19, 2010

Hartvigsen: No intention of explaining to Yahoo microhydro group why he had no proof of turgo design ownership or the existence of the widow Ingela Carlson or could even provide the name of the inventor when he met with our lawyer on Dec. 23, 2009 .
Aug.19, 2010

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: davis ron
To: microhydro-owner@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 11:10:47 PM
Subject: Hartvigsen: No intention of explaining why no proof of claimed tugo design ownership--fraud

Wim,
As you can see in Hartvigsen's message below, he has no intention of explaining to the group why neither he nor Peter Ruyter are able to provide proof of any kind to support the turgo design ownership claims they have been making to the members of the Yahoo microhydro group for several years.

As you know when Hartvigsen met with our attorney on Dec.23, 09 in Salt Lake City he came completely empty handed.

That is, according to our attorney Brian Kunzler, Hartvigsen was able to provide:

1. no proof of the existence of the "widow Ingela Carlson", from whom he claims Ruyter bought the turgo design produced by her husband, (who he is unable to name!) or where he was supposed to have lived and worked,
2.no proof of the claimed design purchase, or where and when that purchase took place,
3.no proof of the "exclusive license" he claims to have to produce the turgo design,
4. no proof of the right to collect "royalty" payments,
5. no proof of any claimed "royalty agreement" with me.

Have you ever heard the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

And you are still not allowing me to reply to their last series of accusations.

Ron Davis








----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Joseph Hartvigsen
To: davis ron
Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 10:15:03 AM
Subject: Re: Would you be willing to allow the members of the micro hydro group see the relevant email record....?

Ron,
I just got back from my trip. i have no idea what you are talking about. What is there to decide? I told you (and the group) that I looked into what Brian told me at our meeting just before Christmas and have conceded his point - for the US at least. To me it was a moot issue since I had long since dropped the question except to state the facts of the dispute when YOU dragged it out to the group. I told Brian that I had no interest in fighting the point and had not been interested in pursuing anything other than getting you to leave me alone.

You act like I'm trying to cheat and defraud you. How could that be when in fact I offered to pay the requested royalty on your behalf if you'd even tell me how many spoons you copied. Before that I offered to buy castings from you to provide you with sufficient profit to pay the requested royalty. After that I left it alone. It is YOU AND ONLY YOU that continues to make this an issue. I have tried to help you from the beginning, giving you spoons at cost and early prototype hubs at no charge. Even the youtube you referred me to show you using the tach I gave you, and you made some stink over that because of some comment Nando made about what he thought the original MSRP was. Now I've given you a good supply of greenspoons and you haven't even acknowledged receiving them.

You go on and on that we made up Ingella and the source of the spoons, yet Peter has told you come meet here and if he can't show you proof of the spoons origin he'd pay for your trip. Do you want me to buy your ticket to Sweden? It would be worth the price to end this insanity.

There is nothing to be decided. You've already been posting email on your blog so why do you need to ask me anything?

Joe

From: davis ron
To: h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com
Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 2:15:53 PM
Subject: Would you be willing to allow the members of the micro hydro group see the relevant email record....?

Joe,
Would you be willing to allow the members of the micro hydro group see the relevant email record and decide for themselves who is telling the truth about your intellectual property claims regarding the turgo design in question and what the consequences should be? Would you be willing to abide by their decision?


Ron

Hartvigsen agrees to talk to attorney Jan. 28, 09

Hartvigsen agrees to talk to attorney Jan. 28, 09

Re: Claimed royalty rights of turgo design
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:01 PM
From:
"Joseph Hartvigsen"
View contact details
To:
watermotor@yahoo.com
Ron,
I will not discuss this further with you. If you wish to use the services of an attorney I will be happy to discuss the situation with him. He (or she) may contact me directly with the name, address and phone number of the law firm so that I can verify the contact information is from a real law firm using public directories. I will then establish contact and address the issue directly with the attorney.

Joe




----- Original Message ----
From: davis ron
To: joe@h-hydro.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:59:04 PM
Subject: Claimed royalty rights of turgo design


Mr Hartvigsen,


I am planning to send a shipment of the turgo runners we produce here in Bolivia to the U.S.
You have repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Custom Service to prevent the entry of my runners claiming them to be illegal copies of a turgo design which you say is legally owned by someone in Sweden and who you say has authorized you to collect royalty payments.
May I ask you to provide my lawyer whatever proof of your intellectual property claims the documentation you would present to the U.S.Customs Service?
If you are unable to do this please inform my lawyer.

All the best,
Ron Davis
watermotor.net