PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.







    

News:FTC Case Against Dennis Lee's Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Page first featured February 10, 2009

The Hydro Assist Fuel Cell kit combines three fuel saving technologies along with a sophisticated computerized emission system optimizer. It includes 1) an electrolysis unit for on-board hydrogen injection; 2) a vaporizer/ionizer using magnets; and 3) additives that include acetone and xylene.
The Hydro Assist Fuel Cell kit combines three fuel saving technologies along with a sophisticated computerized emission system optimizer. It includes 1) an electrolysis unit for on-board hydrogen injection; 2) a vaporizer/ionizer using magnets; and 3) additives that include acetone and xylene.
Temporarily (Exonerated Feb. 11, 2009)

See Dennis Lee Victorious against FTC.

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission), in a lawsuit filed in a New Jersey federal court, says that the company, Dutchman Enterprises, is run by a Dennis Lee whom the FTC says is a convicted felon who has been prosecuted in eight states for violating consumer protection laws. As to the product's scientific claims, the FTC is blunt in saying that the promoters are marketing a product that cannot function as claimed.

The testimonials and other mileage test forms shown as exhibits in the case, offer a different story. Dennis Lee's defense statement below makes for a good read.

Contents

FTC Case

  • FTC Sues Promotor of Bogus Fuel Efficiency Device - "At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has temporarily halted the deceptive advertising campaign and frozen the assets of an operation claiming its device can boost automobile gas mileage by at least 50 percent and “turn any vehicle into a hybrid.” The Commission is seeking a permanent ban on the ads and a further order providing reimbursement to customers who purchased the device." (FTC; Feb 2, 2009)

Exonerated!

The judge ruled in favor of Dutchman Enterprises vs. FTC. Lock, stock and barrel. Their trial lawyer said she had no chance of winning. This is the 2nd time in the history of the FTC that anybody won in New Jersey. No restrictions against Dutchman or any of its dealers. "Sell the systems, it is perfectly fine", but stick to the script. Mandatory to do the before-and-after "Orange Test", for the guarantee to be in place. You can sell them to anybody if you have been trained and are a dealer. The PICC site is down. It will be back up. No restrictions.

The results of the ruling will be posted on the site on the front page of that site as of Feb. 12, 2009 as a public notice.

The FTC "abused its privilege" using a man in Physics and it now can be said that through "expert scientific advice" of testimonies and cross-examination, it has been proved that hydroxy does not break the laws of physics.


Dennis Lee Statement

Case 2:09-cv-00141-FSH-MAS Document 19-2 Filed 02/02/2009

Affidavit of Dennis Lee
"I, Dennis Lee, am one of the defendants in this action. I am over 18 years of age, and am submitting these statements voluntarily. I do declare that the statements are true to the very best of my knowledge and ability.
I am the general manager of Dutchman Enterprises, LLC. I am just one of the employees. I do manage the company for the owners. There are many more employees. While it is true that people have had a field day with (mainly misrepresenting) my legal history, it is not true that I train the mechanics or have been the single Guy to build the technology in question. This is a team of individuals doing their level best to make a difference in the energy field. I do want to at least attempt to set the record straight about myself (one of the people involved in the planning for bigger than me).
I've never had a trial in my entire life. I've not had one to have either won or lost. I do not know what it is like to go to trial. I've had several Summary Judgments in Civil Cases because I was unwilling to surrender top-secret projects in research, that were not even products that had ever been offered for sale. They were not germane to the cases then at hand. I have never had the opportunity to present evidence in a trial before a jury of my peers, or ever have the opportunity to defend myself against evidence in a trial. There has never been a contest based upon the merits in a case that has involved me.
In California, in 1988, I was accused of failing to register my business with the SAMP Act. That business was United Community Services of America in (CSA). The action was brought to protect dealers from me. These are the very same UCSA dealers that are now, over 20 years later, being named as defendants in this action. My supposed victims and I are still together to this very day, in spite of the actions of the Consumer Protection Agency that made it necessary for us to rebuild our company. Some have sold their dealerships since then for over 100 times as much as they paid for them in 1988. I protected and defended them against the consumer advocates that were trying to protect them from the guy who did not fill out a form (myself). I hotly contest that there was any real due process involved in 1988 and I have a lot of evidence to defend that position.
Since then, every time anyone wants to shut me down, they drag that carcass back up and show the judges the appearance of a bad guy. But, this is not about whether or not everyone loves me, or in my quest to stand for right, there have not been battles. It seems like, looking at the documents, the FTC Agent is trying to make it as much or more about my past than it as it is about the present. I encounter that all the time and that is how the goodies of my bad reputation have grown to help people try to make everything that happens in the present be about the past. I have to believe it is very effective, since everyone does it. They use this to paint me as a heinous criminal, but the conviction record does not match the fluff. My big crime in California was not filing a registration that I still believe I was not required to fill out. I did go to prison (once in my life), a decade and a half ago, for two years for violation that CC 1812 registration in California. Upon leaving prison, my "victims" and I, worked hard to rebuild a business that had supposedly injured them. As usual, there had never been any complaints from any of them.
Why can this not just be about whether or not Dutchman Enterprises has engaged in some provable impropriety and not about whether or not there are other agencies over two decades have taken me on, but it never taken me to trial and proven anything on the merits, who did not like me? I think your Honor, to make this just be about what is being done or not done and not about the obvious attempt to play on your emotions. In every case ever brought against me by consumer protection agencies there have never been any consumer complaints against me or the company involved. In this case, as usual, it claims victims without even one complaint. Please let this be based upon the facts of this case.
The following is a statement of fact supported by Exhibits. We're very confident we can prove all of the following facts in court when required to do so. I will include some Exhibits, so you can have some supporting documentation now.
We are being accused of falsely representing the HAFC technology and using false representations to take advantage of consumers
In the first place, Dutchman Enterprises does not sell the HAFC kit to the retail buyers of that kit. The only persons or businesses that Dutchman Enterprises sells the kit to are the UCSA dealers. In an agreement with said dealers (see Exhibit A), Dutchman is allowed to set all guidelines and rules for dealers and their sales of our product to the public. All UCSA dealers have been instructed that they are only allowed to sell each HAFC kit to customers in the public if they are willing to offer the savings guarantee. Their guarantee states that if the customer does a proper orange test prior to the installation of the kit on the vehicle it is intended for, and upon having it properly installed, they do a follow-up orange test, as described in the Installation Manual (pages 4-8) that accompanies all HAFC kits and it does not achieve the requeste 50% improvement in fuel economy, and the dealer involved has had an opportunity to get a "can-do" tuner for the customer to make sure it was tuned properly, then use UCSA dealer involved in selling that HAFC kit will buy back the HAFC kit from the customer for the same price the customer originally bought it for, assuming the customer drains and cleans all the components, and mails them back in good condition to the dealer who sold them. (See the Savings Warrantee in the Installation Manual on page 4 – 5 as Exhibit B.)
The dealers have all agreed to do this and to not misrepresent the benefits of the product of the public in a mandatory agreement to sell engine modifications (see Exhibit A). This agreement must be signed by a UCSA dealer before he or she is allowed to buy any HAFC kits. It states that they will not misrepresent saving claims and that they must offer the savings guarantee when they sell a kit. They are agreeing to follow only what we represent to them to their customers. All representations are documented or exactly as I have reported them above.
Regarding representations on our website
The sticker on the wonder of new cars, and which the expected highway and city mileage of the vehicle or stated, was basically calculated in the same manner as we calculate mileage on modified vehicles. The variables are controlled so the test is as scientific as possible. Our test is no more of a misrepresentation of the facts then that sticker is. When we report mileage improvement, there is always a before and after test comparison in which all of the variables are completely controlled and made identical, so both before and after tests can be scientifically determined. We require testers to use the same gas station and even the same pump. We get right on the interstate at a low traffic time (not rush-hour) and put the vehicle in cruise control without hitting the brakes. We get back off at the end and having driven the same distance at the same speed for both tests. An orange is compared to orange, thus it is called an "orange test".
The only representations Dennis Lee, or Dutchman Enterprises, has ever made to the public in any way is what we put on the PICCTV website (PICCTV.com), and we are prepared to substantiate every statement made on that site is true to the best of our knowledge. A time included in the e-mail (see Exhibit C) that I swear came from the owner of the Mazda mentioned on the website and shown in the ads mentioned in the complaint. Week and not anywhere misrepresent that any claims have been confirmed by any well-known testing facilities. People know how we have arrived at these performance conclusions. An orange test was performed by either the owner, mechanic, or us.
Some of the claims in the website are from consumers and field mechanics that we did not directly experience, but the very reason to believe to be true. The Honda Civic shown in the website is driven by me and I've tested it with scores of other people present, including our corporate counselor. I invite your Honor to take the test with me anytime. In most cases advertised, we can present the evidence of the claim. In a few instances, extenuating circumstances prevent us from being able to, as in the case of two cars refer to which it had accidents. One was completely totaled. We are prepared to go way beyond that and prove that the examples of our success is shown on the website are just a drop in the bucket. There are far more than those specified in the website that we, ourselves, were involved in testing.
Dutchman Enterprises warrantees one thing and one thing only. As the manufacturer, the kit is warranted to be free of defective parts for one year from the date of purchase and that is our only warranty (see Exhibit B again, Installation Manual pages 4-5). We make no other representations of the public, nor have we done so. We do not represent that we are perfect, with all the time units is 50% or better. In fact we do make a statement in the Installation Manual on pages 4-5, period.. "It was like to repeat here that we have not tested all makes and models of cars. Each purchaser, therefore, can be considered an extension of the continued research into the effectiveness of the kit. We would love to hear from you about your experience with the HAFC kit. We welcome the purchaser to follow our instructions for proper test the effect kid has on his/her vehicle (see proper test procedure for the kit) and to assure themselves of getting a satisfactory fuel mileage increase prior to being fully committed to purchase." It is, then made very clear to the buyer that the seller is the UCSA dealer he purchased a kit from, and that the savings is not warranteed by the manufacturer. We just warrantee the parts placement for one year.
Regarding savings claims
Dutchman does not anywhere and is not at any time, represented to anyone that we are perfect, or that all the time our unit will get a 50% or better fuel economy (we have not even represented that to the UCSA dealers). We have had countless weekly two-hour long hotlines in which we have explained that to UCSA dealers, and kept them posted on the progress. We have also never anywhere told anyone that the key to successfully installed with just anyone. We have told them the most mechanics can install a savings devices, But absolutely not all mechanics can make the unit work! In fact, we have worked hard to make it clear to the others that there are a large number of mechanics (and those who we train) who absolutely cannot do it! We have openly, and honestly, shared our progress as we have evolved the technology. We have shared failures as well as successes.
There have been many cars over 100 miles per gallon highway mileage. There have been dealers who have gotten on our Hotlines and announced that they have gotten that they have broken the 100 mile per gallon range. We have has projects that achieve that with the mechanics and the class is witnessing it. In fact the owner of a Christian radio station will testify on the 26th that he has gotten 104 miles per gallon highway with a kit for months.
But, there have also been failures. We have had our chief trainer do a four hour hotline every Monday night in which he helps those who are having difficulties try to troubleshoot the installs that are not working. We have never tried to conceal the fact that we are not able to get everyone of the cars we did to work at first. We have also shown that we have improved and discovered the secrets to making cars work that we originally could not do. We've been proud of the fact we have improved and gotten more and more mechanics to be able to do it as time has gone on. We have consistently raised the number of "can-do" mechanics.
Initially, we felt it was just a matter of time before we were able to figure it out and trained an abundance of mechanics who can do it. It went more slowly never want it to, but we can certainly prove we put out our "best efforts". We also took our training program and put it on video in order to expedite the number of mechanics a train. As for the DVD training, we were excited that there are many mechanics were able to make our technology work effectively by getting all their training on the DVDs. We have mechanics whodunit that we have never even met. Many UCSA dealers bought the training DVDs and sent them out to their customer to have the customers help recruit mechanics in more locations. Every week we had more success and trained mechanics went into the field reported that her success and failures, hand working with them, we are able to learn more and more of our technology, until we felt pretty good about our knowledge and the number of mechanics who we felt got the results. All of the UCSA dealers who are selling our kits were made aware that this was not absolute. We've misrepresented nothing. We have never tried to conceal our failures. We have been proud of our success as we did cars that had been even hard for us to do. That is why it was so important for us to make sure the dealers were honoring their duty relative to the repurchase of the kit where customers qualified and requested it.
Our successes and our training classes where hundreds of mechanics attended (most of whom a Master Mechanics) far outweighed our failures by most likely around 80-90% success rate. Typically we did three cars and only occasionally one of the three cars did not achieve a 50% savings benchmark. We have even met and trained mechanics who left her classes were able to be successful at exceeding or hitting our benchmark 100% of the time. One of them from here in New Jersey will testify on the 26th. I think he's up to 100 successful installs. One of them is the owner of a Christian radio station who has a Honda that is currently getting 104 miles per gallon, who is also willing to testify in the 26th.
The idea was to help dealers not to have to buy back any more than half of the kids they sold. They are on a 100% profit margin and that means that even if they did buy back half the kits they sold, it would still be very profitable for them. The buybacks that we are aware of are far less than a half that average. Whatever dealer sold hundreds of kits (I think 600) and cheerfully repurchased I any kit anyone has asked him to (even if they did not do the orange test) and has only been asked to do it less than 30 times. It to the customers are happy on when they save 30%. Its typical. I spent more time with the dealers who have been the most successful at this, I believe that the dealership sold over 90% of the kit buyers have always honored the savings warranty. I have been told they have and I do not know to the contrary. I cannot speak for every dealer, but it is not our duty to buy anything back. We, not the dealers, are being charged with Miss representation and her representations are exactly as I reported them to you and we can have so been preventing court. I do not see even one customer complaint in this action. Where are the customers at the FTC is talking about? Have they produced even one?
Regarding Experts and Eyewitness Testimonies
We have trained close to 1,000 trainer mechanics were supposed to train others. The majority of them are extremely top shelf mechanics. We've had a policy that become to training the first interaction with the technology can and does work, they are entitled to back out of commitment to pay $1000 (currently $1200) for the training. There has, over a two-year period, only been one mechanic who had to quit the class for a full refund at the end of the first day. Why do all these mechanics (experts themselves) believe the technology works? Why do so many of them and their customers think they been successful in getting the results? If, as Dr. Halperin had claimed, it is impossible for it to work, why do so many experts disagree? We will bring expert witnesses who built engines who are experts on the internal combustion engine, that will show the court flaws in the affidavit of Dr. Halperin. That is not to say that we believe that Dr. Halperin's representations of science, for the most part, are not true and accurate science, but we do believe that they, for the most part, are not relevant to the technology in question, with which Dr. Halperin has had no experience. Dr. Halperin has done some really neat work on cryogenics, but has not had a lot of experience with internal combustion engines. A statement can be factual, but in another context may not be applicable, and that is what we believe has happened here. There is a world of difference between statements about how much gas burns in an engine and how much burns when you include the unburned gasoline burned that is burned under the ca in the catalytic converter. How it turns the engine is just a few milliseconds to 2000 RPMs? How much is burned in the engine, then less burned in the pollution control device, and that results in more distance traveled per gallon.
I am including affidavits of several experts rebuild and even design into question engines. (See Exhibit D.) Dr. Halperin accurately points out that what we are calling a fuel cell is not what others have designed and called a fuel cell. Their fuel cell produces electricity. I decided what to call the device. In my opinion a device to make electricity generator, and sensor device actually produces combustible fuel, it has more right to the name "fuel-cell" than an electric generator. I do not believe it is illegal to make that distinction.
The HAFC see technology as that is patented by the US Patent Office. The Patent Attorney who filed a patent along with two others and has extended to worldwide protection, pointed out to me the following: "The US patent office will not issue a patent on truly bogus technology". I will include a copy of the issue patent an affidavit of our Patent Attorney. There are two more HAFC patents pending, as well as pending protection on the PICC, which is in research and has never been presented as a product for sale anywhere. (See Exhibits E and F) I'm also including affidavits of our top trainers (who are well known in their own right) (Exhibits G and H) as well as of the training assistance (Exhibits H and J) who have had direct experience with this technology. I hope your Honor can see that it is not as simple as presented by Dr. Halperin.
I feel the need to also have a short essay and DVD on a true value of water (see Exhibit L). Water is not just H2O as Dr. Halperin suggests. It has properties that are still not fully understood by the scientific community. There is a short DVD that will explain how complex the structure water is. It is chemically simple, but structurally it is extremely complex. I think my selection of experts at (any one of which I could pay to testify I had my funds released) will be sufficient to make the point. I also tagged a few minutes onto the end of their 10 minute presentation to show your Honor exactly what I teach to the mechanics in our class. I am an expert in the area, and have rights to the original patent rights for all of North America to the water gets technology first developed by Dr. Yull Brown. I hope you'll agree with scores of scientists including two Nobel prizewinners that water gas is hardly just H2O.
In conclusion, when you really examine the FTC's case that has been prepared over months at great expense, in light of the evidence we have been able to assemble in a couple of days with all our funds frozen, they do not have much of a case. They have presented as evidence for the Motions, the appearance of a bad guy who's conviction record does not rise to the image portrayed, in the affidavit of an expert who has been mainly involved in cryogenic research, with milligrams of internal combustion engines. In his expert without pertinent experience, trying to prove a negative – the thing which apparently has happened, cannot happen. We have hundreds upon hundreds of satisfied customers, who are convinced they're getting mileage increases, and no complaints. Ross also possibly 1000 trained mechanics who are convinced it can happen. We have included only a small sample of affidavits from customers and mechanics have seen it happen over and over (see Exhibit K). Field research from dozens of experts shows that water is not just H2O and that gasoline is not fully burned in an engine under operating conditions, thus the need for catalytic converters and other pollution device to protect the environment from the vehicular pollution (unburned fuel). Above all, we are discussing a patented product with an issued patent!
We pray that justice will prevail."

Signed by Dennis Lee and others.

FTC vs. Dutchman Enterprises

Exhibit B, beginning on Page 13, is the "Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Technical Evaluation".

Exhibit C, beginning on page 34, is the Patent No. 7,389,753 "System and Process for Improving Engine Performance".

Exhibit D, beginning on page 44 are testimonials for the product's fuel performance increases.

Mileage Test Calculation forms begin on page 54.

More recent testimonials for the product as of January 20, 2009 begin on page 70 with more mileage calculation forms following.

More testimonials continue on page 85.

More Mileage Test Calculation forms continue.

Exhibit E, beginning on page 93, is the Civil Docket from January 12, 2009 against Dutchman Enterprises.

Exhibit F, beginning on page 97, is the Restraining Order.

History

"His story began in 1985 when Dennis Lee introduced his Super Heat Pump in his native state of Washington on a risk-free 'system-for-savings' program. The heat pump was so efficient it could save 70-80% of heat and hot water costs, and when his marketing program proved to be highly successful, the central utility was not pleased with the competition. They encouraged the Attorney General's Office to bring a suit against Lee's company. The baseless lawsuit was an attempt to discredit him and the technology. Subsequently, his factory was broken into virtually every night.
"The media splashed bad publicity across the papers regularly, his financial backers were encouraged to pull out, and the Attorney General's Office encouraged his customers to back out of the deal. Papers stolen from his factory turned up in the possession of the Deputy District Attorney. Although it was in no one's interest (except perhaps the utilities) to put his company out of business, the Attorney General's Office attempted to do just that." Free Energy Cover-up: The Story of Dennis Lee - (The Mail Archive; Dec. 16, 1998)

Directories

  • HAFC: Hydro Assist Fuel Cell kit - The HAFC kit presently for sale combines three fuel saving technologies along with a sophisticated computerized emission system optimizer. It includes 1) an electrolysis unit for on-board hydrogen injection; 2) a vaporizer/ionizer using magnets; and 3) additives that include acetone and xylene.
  • The new Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell - "If you purchase a Hydro Assist Fuel Cell, you can experience significantly increased fuel economy now until your PICC is ready, and then return your HAFC for a full credit of it’s purchase price less shipping ($995.95) toward the purchase of your Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter."

Politics

The existing corpagopoly continues to suppress promising technologies. This is one of the latest egregious examples of "just-us".

In the News

  • Featured: H Boosting > HAFC > FTC v Dutchman
    Dennis Lee and Dutchman Defeat FTC - In a major victory for the science of hydrogen-boost related systems, Dennis Lee and Dutchman Enterprises were exonerated after a month of being shut down by an FTC temporary restraining order for their super-mileage claims. (PESN; Feb. 13, 2009)
  • Featured: Fuel Efficiency > H Injection > Dennis Lee > HAFC >
    FTC Case Against Dennis Lee's Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell - In FTC vs. Dutchman Enterprises run by Dennis Lee, claims that the promoters are marketing a product that cannot function as advertised. The testimonials and other mileage test forms shown as exhibits in the case, offer a different story. (PESWiki; Feb. 10, 2009)
  • Device cannot boost gas mileage, FTC says in court papers - The name sounds impressive - the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell - but the product's claims that it will "turn any vehicle into a hybrid" are phony, not to mention downright impossible, according to the Federal Trade Commission. (Press of Atlantic City; Feb. 8, 2009)
  • FTC stops bogus ads on Internet - A company advertising a product called Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC ) on the Internet and in Newsweek, Popular Science, and Smithsonian magazines has claimed that its device will boost gas mileage fifty per cent and turn any vehicle into a hybrid. (IT Examiner.com; Feb. 8, 2009)
  • Consumer memo: FTC gains legal traction - Dennis Lee is a convicted felon who has been selling a device known as the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell for $1,000, claiming it will “turn any vehicle into a hybrid,” according to the FTC complaint filed in federal court in Newark, N.J. (Kansas City.com; Feb. 3, 2009)
  • Firm barred from making gas claims - The Federal Trade Commission has won a court order temporarily barring a New Jersey company from making false claims about a device that it touts as boosting automobile gas mileage by as much as 300 percent. (North Jersey; Feb, 3, 2009)

Discussion

See Discussion page

See also

- Other Directory listingsLatestA-IJ-RS-ZTreeNews
- PESWiki home page


- Other Directory listingsLatestA-IJ-RS-ZTreeNews
- PESWiki home page

Personal tools

Departments
Sponsored Links

Support
Toolbox