Corruption, American Style --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Brian Kunzler wrote: From: Brian Kunzler Subject: RE: Hartvigsen's latest message about you. To: "davis ron" Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 4:17 PM Ron, I do not recall that Mr. Hartvigsen presented conclusive evidence of the Widow’s existence. Again, legally, it is of no consequence, so I did not pursue that aspect of the conversation very far. Unfortunately, I didn’t take extensive notes of the conversation. We did discuss whether he had any proprietary rights to the design. He seemed to believe he did. I explained the law to him, and at least lessened his conviction, if not totally changing his mind. Because copyright does not cover functional designs, the Widow’s existence is not important to your right to sell the design. It might have bearing on a defamation case because he had to know the statements he was making were false in order for you to prevail in such a suit. Otherwise, our discussion was just regarding the history of his dealings with you. I think I have already explained to you what stuck out from those discussions. Please keep in mind that anything I report from the conversation would not be admissible in a defamation case as it would be hearsay. I am not sure what consequence it has whether Robert Rees is a mormon bishop or not. I can see how his statements regarding your lack or right to sell the design could have cost you business and therefore might be part of a law suit (though you will have to prove the loss of business to get any damages) but I don’t see how the religion aspect comes into play. I don’t think I said that I can prove he is or is not a bishop, but it would be very easy to find out. I would just have to go to the neighborhood and ask around a bit. My guess is that he is. Mormon bishops are quite common, it is a lay position, unlike in other religions. It does not carry all that much weight either, which is why I do not see why he would lie about it, or what you have to gain by following up on it. I don’t recall stating David Fonda had not advised Hartvigsen that the copyright applied or not. Please keep in mind that my conversations with David and Joe will not be admissible in court. I have not communicated with Harvigsen except at our lunch meeting and emails to set it up. Regarding defamation, it is not actually my area of specialty. I can tell you that a successful suit could easily cost you $50,000 to $100,000. Usually you can get an injunction also, but he has already agreed verbally to cease from telling people you have cannot legally produce the turgo product. If you can prove that you have lost over that much in profit, not total sales, the case may be worth bringing. If he can prove the existence of the widow, then he may have a successful defense if the court buys the fact that he believed that copyright law applied. Again, it is not my specialty, but I don’t see the basis for a criminal case of defamation. Regarding the retraction of the fraudulent claims on the Internet, that is where you may want to use the threat of a suit for defamation or even better, intentional interference with a business relationship. Threat of such a suit could cause him to be more willing to make a public retraction. If you would like me to prepare a letter to him asking for such a public retraction, I would be glad to do so. Please keep in mind that your retainer paid for two hours of my time. At this point, with my meetings with him and communications with you, I have exceeded that amount of time. To do such a letter, I would need a retainer for another half hour of time, which would be $140. Best regards, Brian Brian C. Kunzler Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe 8 East Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (O): 801-994-4646 (F): 801-531-1929 kunzler@kmiplaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication, and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message and all copies thereof to us by mail at our expense. From: davis ron [mailto:watermotor@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:38 PM To: Brian Kunzler Subject: Hartvigsen's latest message about you. Brian, No question after what he has done Hartvigsen wants to "drop the matter" before everyone finds out what a vicious con man he is, and how he uses serial lies to get people to cover up for him. I would be very careful of this guy if I were you. Now, please reply to our questions this time. We asked you for a clear account of the meeting with Hartvigsen regarding the public statements he has used over the last several years to destroy our Watermotor aid project here in Bolivia. We never got that. We need it right away for the defamation suit. As you saw in Hartvigsen's most recently sent messages to me, which he also sent to you, he is again claiming that in the meeting with you of Dec. 23, 09 he presented proof to you of the existence of the the widow Ingella (or Ingela) Carlson (or Carllson), from whom he says his partner had purchased the turgo design rights. (This fable is the basis of his entire IP claim re the turgo.) It is not, as his friends say, irrelevant. It is the basis for our defamation suit, as well as criminal defamation prosecution. You CLEARLY told me he had not presented anything to support any of his claims at that meeting. Is he calling you a liar? It seems Hartvigsen is also claiming that somehow YOU can prove the Utah State Attorney Robert H. Rees was his Mormon bishop, as he told me. You are aware that Rees was investigated for impersonating a Mormon bishop by the Summit County Sheriff's Dept. You told me that the Ceramatec patent attorney, Dave Fonda, said that he had NOT advised Hartvigsen that copyright applied to the turgo design and nor was Hartvigsen correct in concealing my emails to Ceramatec regarding the testing of my invention FiberSil, and secretly making himself (Hart.) "co-inventor". Now Hartvigsen is saying the opposite. What is the story here? How have you responded to Hartvigsen? Please send us a copy of your response. We have asked you about the cost of a defamation suit against Hartvigsen, and a cease and desist order. You did not reply regarding either subject. Why not? (YOU brought up the possibility of a defamation suit in our first telephone conversation.) We asked you how you thought he would do in court, having nothing to support his claim. You didn't answer this either. We asked you about a getting retraction to his fraudulent claims on the Internet. You did not reply. Since he has been deliberately deceiving the public for years, don't you think that would be appropriate? One more question: How do we have Hartvigsen charged with criminal defamation? Best, Ron Davis --- On Thu, 2/18/10, Brian Kunzler wrote: From: Brian Kunzler Subject: RE: Brian Kunzler: NEW, Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: "davis ron" Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 5:46 PM Ron, From my reading, what Joe is saying is that he is throwing in the towel. He is dropping the subject. He is all but conceding my point about him not having any rights -- not because of the widow -- but because there are no proprietary rights in the design, absent patents. It sounds like to me he wants to drop the matter, which is what I thought you wanted. He appears to be agreeing to not make any more statement publicly on the matter. That should allow you to go forward with marketing your product. Brian Brian C. Kunzler Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe 8 East Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (O): 801-994-4646 (F): 801-531-1929 kunzler@kmiplaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication, and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message and all copies thereof to us by mail at our expense. From: davis ron [mailto:watermotor@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:02 PM To: Brian Kunzler Subject: Brian Kunzler: NEW, Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site Brian, This is mostly about you. Now, once again, Hartvigsen is telling people that you, my attorney, are going to back up his scam. What do you have to say about this? Please get back us right away. We are still waiting for your replies to several questions regarding Hartvigsen's statements about you we asked in our last email. I also asked you about a cease and desist order some days ago. You did not reply. Wouldn't that prevent him from making more false claims about you? How about filing a defamation suit against Hartvigsen? How much does that cost? Ron Davis --- On Thu, 2/18/10, Joseph Hartvigsen wrote: From: Joseph Hartvigsen Subject: Re: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: "davis ron" Cc: "Brian Kunzler" Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:55 AM Ron, What part of I want to drop the matter now just as I did 6-8 years ago do you not get? How did I not take the meeting with Mr. Kunzler seriously? I did show Mr. Kunzler a handwritten and signed note from Ingella Carlsson noting that she was sending spoons on behalf of Peter, but as Mr. Kunzler noted it is irrelevant given the view that the copyright, while it exists, apparently offers no protection against what you are doing. Bishop Robert H Rees has a brother inlaw who is also a patent attorney one floor away from the KNMT law firm. Again you are barking up the wrong tree. My understanding from our discussion was that Mr. Kunzler did inquire of the current and past patent attorneys at Ceramatec, both of whom verified that I did not withhold or misrepresent that you are the original inventor of fibersil. The only issue there is that you didn't understand what a co-inventor is when there has been additional IP generated as there was in this case. In any case that project was dropped since you didn't like the offered terms. The only issue here is in your mind. Your whole long list of supposed lies evaporate if they are checked out. I will still confidently affirm that I have not made any knowingly false or misleading statements to you or about you. My statements on the applicability of copyright, while based on the circ01.pdf file from copyright.gov and discussions with an attorney, were technically incorrect. In hind sight, other than not understanding the limits of protections afforded by copyright, my only mistake in all of this was trying to help you in the first place. I see from your message below that you are sending our private email to a number of parties who are not involved in the matter, but you have not approached me directly or through your attorney to address any remaining issues. Do you want to drop this or do you want to keep dragging it out and about? What do you want to see as a resolution of this dispute? Joe From: davis ron To: jjh@ceramatec.com; joe@h-hydro.com; h-n-h7@msn.com Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 5:42:07 PM Subject: Fw: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site --- On Wed, 2/17/10, davis ron wrote: From: davis ron Subject: Fw: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: jajgs@surewest.net Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 7:34 PM --- On Wed, 2/17/10, Otto Rike wrote: From: Otto Rike Subject: Fw: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: "ron davis" Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 7:31 PM --- On Thu, 2/18/10, Otto Rike wrote: From: Otto Rike Subject: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: michael_welch@sbcglobal.net Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:07 AM And BYU patent lawyer's response --- On Thu, 2/18/10, davis ron wrote: From: davis ron Subject: Fw: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: ottorike@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:01 AM --- On Wed, 2/17/10, davis ron wrote: From: davis ron Subject: Hartvigsen's Turgo Design Claims on Yahoo Microhydro egroup site To: jay15661@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 6:52 PM Hartvigsen to Yahoo e-group Feb. 28 09, photos of my "inferior" turbines These have clearly been damaged http://notepad.mail.yahoo.com/YYY,e87b30/srt,0/?v=161&i=198&SW=&PSW=&POS=0&CID=0 Open letter to Yahoo microhydropower e-group list owner Wim Klunne March 10, 09 http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/microhydro@yahoogroups.com/11642111.html Hartvigsen's March 11, 09 response to "Open letter to Wim Klunne" from Ron Davis Klunne himself did not respond. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/microhydro/message/10930 Klunne March 11, 09 Closing discussion on turgo design without allowing me to reply http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/microhydro/message/10933 Most recently: The meeting between Joseph Hartvigsen and our attorney Brian Kunzler took place on Dec. 23, 09. Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:00 PM re: Meeting With Joseph Hartvigsen From: "Brian Kunzler" To: "davis ron" Ron, I just found out that your emails were being sent to my junk folder. I get them on my phone, but not my computer. That is why my responses to have been sporadic. I have fixed that. In my meeting with Mr. Hartvigsen, I explained that the existence of the widow was of no consequence, 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. He did not establish her existence, nor did I see a license agreement. Again, both are irrelevant. Copyright law does not cover what they are doing. 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. Best regards, Brian Brian C. Kunzler Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe 8 East Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (O): 801-994-4646 (F): 801-531-1929 kunzler@kmiplaw.com From: davis ron [mailto:watermotor@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:43 AM To: Brian Kunzler Subject: Meeting With Joseph Hartvigsen Hello Brian, I have a Watermotor turbine ready to ship to the U.S. The day before yesterday I asked Joseph Hartvigsen a straightforward question: " Are you still claiming my turbines are "illegal" copies and that you could have them banned from the U.S by U.S. Customs?" You saw his reply, which he sent to you as well. I am sorry to say that it seems that Hartvigsen did not take the meeting with you very seriously. We are awaiting a report on your meeting with Joseph Hartvigsen which was to allow you to evaluate his IP claims regarding the turgo turbine runner design we use. Hartvigsen said he would be able show you whatever evidence he would present in court to support his claims regarding turgo design ownership. And what he would present to the U.S. customs Service as proof that my turgo runners were "illegal" copies, as he has publicly claimed, and which he has threatened to have seized. He said he would also explain why, as a scientific professional with special training in understanding IP regulations, he has publicly maintained for years that COPYRIGHT protection was applicable to his turgo design ownership claims. As you see, he is now trying to claim ignorance of basic IP rules as an excuse, making no mention of the damage his false claims have done. He was to explain why he could publicly demand royalty payments from me when there was no royalty agreement. Did he explain why neither he nor Peter Ruyter could prove any aspect of the widow Carlson story, upon which their entire turgo design ownership claim is based, to be factual. Could they even provide the NAME of the supposed inventor? Did you discuss the public retraction of his public statements, made for years, that my turbines are illegal? Did you inform him that he could expect to be held responsible for the damage he has done with his fraudulent and libelous public statements? What was his response? So, very importantly, as an attorney, please tell us how do you think Hartvigsen's story would stand up in court? He also said he would explain concealing my business corresponance to his company Ceramatec regarding the testing of my invention FiberSil from the company records, and having secretly made himself co-inventor. This would include his statement, as you saw, made to me and others that the Ceramatec patent attorney supported his claim that copyright protection was applicable to the turgo design and that he had the right to secretly claim to have co-invented my invention FiberSil, which Hartvigsen was in charge of testing. Did you ask him who else at Ceramatec knew he was doing this? Ashok Joshi, for an example? ( Hartvigsen said that he handed Joshi the 67 emails from me he had been concealing.) Brian, We need to know what Hartvigsen means by these statements regarding his meeting with you a month ago: " I think Brian can confirm the existence of Bishop Robert Rees, and that I am not making up Mrs. Ingela Carlsson either. I think the only finding in your favor out of our discussions is that I had an incorrect understanding of the strength of protection afforded by copyright." Did you, as my attorney, actually agree to tell anyone you examined widow Carlson fable and found it to be true? You certainly didn't tell me any such thing. Did he prove to you that State Attorney Robert Rees actually was his Mormon bishop as he claimed Rees was when he wrote to me, and why the LDS church refused to confirm this claim? If so why was Rees unable to prove this to the Summit County Sheriff's Dept when he was investigated for impersonating a bishop? Do you agree with this statement, as he implies, that the false IP claims he has used for years to destroy our Watermotor project, and my reputation was a result of a minor misunderstanding of intellectual property laws, of which he was not informed, and for which he should not expect to be held responsible? Hartvigsen seems to be speaking on your behalf here. You must realize he has sent this message out to other people. Please let me know right away what you intend to do about this. As I have mentioned to you before, for years whenever anyone actually asks Hartvigsen for proof of his IP claims he doesn't provide it, since it does not exist, but rather makes some extremely defamatory statements about me personally to cover for his fraud. I can show you several public and private examples in which this type of information from Hartvigsen is referred to. Did you ask him about this? What did he say? You told me that as my attorney when you learned the nature of these statements you would inform me about them. Brian, Next Monday we are meeting with three vice-ministers in the Bolivian Government regarding the Watermotor project. We will also meet with the new Director of the Patent Office.( I think I mentioned that I hold more patents on machines than anyone else in Bolivia). If this matter is not resolved we will request that they inquire into Hartvigsen's threats to have my turbines banned from the U.S. as a trade issue. These is no reason why this matter should not have already been resolved. If you have any reason whatsoever to question the veracity of ANY of my statements or doubt the falsity of ANY of Hartvigsen's claims, please let me know. Best, Ron --- On Sat, 1/30/10, Joseph Hartvigsen wrote: From: Joseph Hartvigsen Subject: Re: spoon copying To: "davis ron" Cc: "Brian Kunzler" Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 6:54 PM Ron, I met with your Attorney Brian Kunzler just before Christmas. Brian offered a different view of the applicability of copyright protection than I had been advised when I discussed this with an IP attorney several years ago. His view also differed from what I understood having read the circ01.pdf file I'd referred you to on copyrights.gov Further reading suggested by Brian confirmed his assertion that any functional aspects are not protected by copyright. However, the reading did seem to indicate that there is always the potential that some applicability of copyright could be claimed, particularly since you have not reverse engineered something similar, but actually used the spoon as the form to make a mold for your copies. I told Brian that "I am willing to agree to disagree privately and to drop the matter publicly." which ironically is where we were 6-8 years ago before you kept bringing this up. I also stated that I cannot concede any point on Peter's behalf, and that I believe that Peter has purchased the copyright from Mrs. Ingela Carlsson or at least secured agreement to use it. The protection offered by this copyright may be very weak, but as I understand it its existence is as undeniable as the existence of the spoons. So where does that leave us regarding the orange spoons? Basically it is where we were before all of the discussion where you were copying and I, having relayed Peter's displeasure in the practice and having been unsuccessful in negotiating any sort of arrangement, had dropped the mater. In the mean time I have spent a great deal of time designing a range of new spoon sizes with various design improvements. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on molds, some of which have been reworked after testing the parts. Having been down this painful road once, I have no interest in starting over with this issue. I don't think it is reasonable that I should invest so much time, thought and money in new products only to enable you to short circuit the process by buying one part to use as a form for making copies. Therefore, if you wish to use any of these new products, such as the greenspoon (150mm pcd with 240 spoons, elliptical or cyl/hemi contours) I will require a signed agreement that you will not copy or enable others to do so as a precondition of sale. I don't expect that you will be interested in such an arrangement, but those will be the terms going forward. I think Brian can confirm the existence of Bishop Robert Rees, and that I am not making up Mrs. Ingela Carlsson either. I think the only finding in your favor out of our discussions is that I had an incorrect understanding of the strength of protection afforded by copyright. I had already told you repeatedly of my desire to drop the matter. So what do you want to do at this point? Joe Joseph Hartvigsen Hartvigsen-Hydro 1529 South 400 East Kaysville, UT 84037 USA Micro Hydro components, turgo runners http://h-hydro.com From: davis ron To: jjh@ceramatec.com; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 3:56:29 PM Subject: Hartvigsen, Are you still claiming my turbines are "illegal" copies and that you could have them banned from the U.S by U.S. Customs? Ron Davis, Watermotor@yahoo.com