bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
During October 2005, the United States District Court of Arizona issued an injunction against the Heary Brothers et al. which in effect prohibited them from claiming that their ESE gadgets have a protection range that exceeds that of Franklin rods.
As would be expected, the Heary Brothers attempted to evade compliance by playing word games! Hence they had to be brought back to court to account for their actions. This resulted in a second order, declaring them to be in violation of the October 2005 court order, and warning them that they would face contempt of court charges if they failed to comply.
The second court order was issued on October 10, 2008. Please see the attached copy.
One of the gimmicks used by the Heary Brothers was that they were just advertising their actual experience with their products. That claim is also used by other ESE vendors, and its validity has been challenged by Hartono and others. The response of the court was that advertisements regarding the alleged experience with ESE devices should include a statement that the claimed protection range is not scientifically proven or guaranteed.
When the 2005 Court Order was issued, other ESE vendors vehemently argued that the finding of the Court did not apply to them because they were not parties to the subject litigation. While technically correct, that argument is as invalid as that used by the Heary Brothers to evade compliance. The reasons are as follows:
1) The invalidity of ESE theory does not really arise from condemnation by the courts. It rather arises from condemnation by the scientific community at large. All a court does is ascertain the position of independent scientists on the matter.
2) Scientists have repeatedly told ESE vendors that their claims had no merit. The vendors always responded by repeating their nonsense. The main advantage of the court process is that it provides closure by ruling the vendors to be argumentative, and by stopping them from endlessly repeating the same nonsense.
3) The scientific community has condemned ESE devices, regardless of the make or type. Hence the finidings of the US Court of Arizona morally, if not legally, apply to all ESE devices.
4) There is no doubt that the US Court of Arizona would have made similar findings against the other ESE vendors if they participated in the subject court hearings. For all what the other ESE vendors could have done was submit testimony by their "commercial scientists". The court would have then decided the matter by weighing their qualifications compared to those of Professor Martin Uman who testified against ESE devices. Considering that Professor Uman is the undisputed giant in lightning sciences, any restimony presented by the opposing commercial scientists would have been rejected.
5) When NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) rejected ESE devices, that rejection applied to all ESE devices. It was obvious that the ensuing court action by the Heary Brothers would similarly have implications regarding all ESE devices and not just those sold by the Heary Brothers and their co-plaintiffs. It was open to the vendors of other ESE devices to participate as intervenors. I think they did not do that because they knew that would loose.
Click here to download a copy of the Court Order:
http://www.iaeifl.org/forumuploads/attachments/161.pdf
As would be expected, the Heary Brothers attempted to evade compliance by playing word games! Hence they had to be brought back to court to account for their actions. This resulted in a second order, declaring them to be in violation of the October 2005 court order, and warning them that they would face contempt of court charges if they failed to comply.
The second court order was issued on October 10, 2008. Please see the attached copy.
One of the gimmicks used by the Heary Brothers was that they were just advertising their actual experience with their products. That claim is also used by other ESE vendors, and its validity has been challenged by Hartono and others. The response of the court was that advertisements regarding the alleged experience with ESE devices should include a statement that the claimed protection range is not scientifically proven or guaranteed.
When the 2005 Court Order was issued, other ESE vendors vehemently argued that the finding of the Court did not apply to them because they were not parties to the subject litigation. While technically correct, that argument is as invalid as that used by the Heary Brothers to evade compliance. The reasons are as follows:
1) The invalidity of ESE theory does not really arise from condemnation by the courts. It rather arises from condemnation by the scientific community at large. All a court does is ascertain the position of independent scientists on the matter.
2) Scientists have repeatedly told ESE vendors that their claims had no merit. The vendors always responded by repeating their nonsense. The main advantage of the court process is that it provides closure by ruling the vendors to be argumentative, and by stopping them from endlessly repeating the same nonsense.
3) The scientific community has condemned ESE devices, regardless of the make or type. Hence the finidings of the US Court of Arizona morally, if not legally, apply to all ESE devices.
4) There is no doubt that the US Court of Arizona would have made similar findings against the other ESE vendors if they participated in the subject court hearings. For all what the other ESE vendors could have done was submit testimony by their "commercial scientists". The court would have then decided the matter by weighing their qualifications compared to those of Professor Martin Uman who testified against ESE devices. Considering that Professor Uman is the undisputed giant in lightning sciences, any restimony presented by the opposing commercial scientists would have been rejected.
5) When NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) rejected ESE devices, that rejection applied to all ESE devices. It was obvious that the ensuing court action by the Heary Brothers would similarly have implications regarding all ESE devices and not just those sold by the Heary Brothers and their co-plaintiffs. It was open to the vendors of other ESE devices to participate as intervenors. I think they did not do that because they knew that would loose.
Click here to download a copy of the Court Order:
http://www.iaeifl.org/forumuploads/attachments/161.pdf