2nd Amended Cross Compliaint (John)10!26!10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

John S. Green36123 Camp CreekSpringfield, Oregon 97478tel (541) 606-2422

PRO-PER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DESERT DIVISION, INDIO BRANCH

DIANNE STEWART BUTTERFIELD, individually, and as of the Trustee of the E. & G. Stewart, Family revocable Trust of 12-1-09, and WAYNE, BUTTERFIELD,

Plaintiffs, vs.

ECO-FUELER CORPORATION, An Oregon, corporation, J. W. Hendricks, also known as , JERRY HENDRICKS, JOHN S. GREEN and DOES , 1 TO 200 inclusive,

Defendants_____________________________________

JOHN S. GREEN

Cross-Complainant

vs.

DIANNE STEWART BUTTERFIELD, individually, and as the Trustee of the E. & G. Stewart, Family revocable Trust of 12-1-09,WAYNE BUTTERFIELD, THE ESTATE OF GEOFF STEWART, E.AND G. STEWART , THOMAS W HARRIS. JR. and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive,

Cross Defendants

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No.: No. linc-092312

2 nd AMENDEDCROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

1. FRAUD2. BREACH OF FIDUCERY DUTY;3. CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY;4. CIVIL EXTORSION;5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS6. ABUSE OF PROCESS;7. SLANDER;

- 1 -(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMES NOW the Cross-Complainant John S. Green for himself

Cross-Complainant John S. Green cross-complains and allege as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(FRAUD)

(Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield)

1. The references to the statutes are properly inserted within this cross complaint as cross

defendant, Attorney Tom Harris used references to statutes in his original complaint on behalf of

the cross defendants and thereby relinquished his right to strike or object to references to statutes

contained within this cross complaint.

. "The essential elements for a cause of action to be filed against an attorney without prior

court approval is stated in cal civil code 1710 (c)”

(c) This section shall not apply to a cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client, where (1) the attorney has an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or (2) the attorney's acts go beyond the performance of a professional duty to serve the client and involve a conspiracy to violate a legal duty in furtherance of the attorney's financial gain .

2. Wayne Butterfield a Corporate a Director of the Eco-Fueler corporation Represented that he was

also an investment advisor to 2,000 investors many of whom could individually fund the Four

Million Dollars ($4,000,000) required by the banks in Tennessee as a condition for them to put up

the remaining Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000) to start production of the Eco-Fueler

vehicle, To that end, Wayne Butterfield agreed that if the corporation would put on a private auto

show for his private list of 2,000 investors in Palm Springs, CA, that he would send an email

solicitation with a telephone follow up to have them attend the show. Wayne Butterfield used

this as a fraudulent inducement to the other directors of said corporation, to get them to agree to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expend large sums of money, resources and time. Based on Wayne Butterfields representations

the Eco-fueler corporation enter into contract with the City of Palm Springs Ca. to use their

facilities for the show and presentation,

3. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and on such information and belief, allege that

Wayne Butterfield violated California civil code 1572, (1),(4), (5), by knowing he had no

intension of performing any of the agreed to services he had offered, he thereby created a

fraudulent contract between himself, the Cross-Complainant, Jerry Hendricks and the Ecofueler

Corporation.

Cal civil code 1572. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists inany of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, orwith his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, orto induce him to enter into the contract:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or, 5. Any other act fitted to deceive.


Wayne Butterfield additionally violated California civil code 3294 Knowing we had the primary

funding commitment he, with fraud, malice and intent clandestinely did not invite anyone. This

was done intentionally to further the Cross-Defendants scheme to put the company in a financial

position so as to enhance the plaintiffs ability to acquire the rights to our patents and intellectual

property.

Cal civil code 3294. (a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising

from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

5. As a result of the cross-defendants fraud, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct

damages in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus

loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.

6. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants, cross-complainant

Green is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .

Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-

millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages

should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)

(Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield)

7. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated

herein the same as though fully set forth.

8. As a result of the conditions of Wayne and Dianne Butterfields’ offer that was made to Eco-

Fueler Corporation to invest in the company, Wayne Butterfield was made one of three directors of

the corporation. By insisting on having that position, certain duties and responsibilities were taken on

by Wayne Butterfield. One of the primary duties was to act in the best interest of all of the stock

holders of the corporation. Being in this position of director he had intimate knowledge of the

financial well being of the corporation along with any other information he could request and receive.

Wayne Butterfield was appointed a member of the Board of Directors in January 2006, and elected to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Board of Directors at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors and Shareholders. He

has not resigned that position.

9. Wayne. Butterfield was made aware of negotiations with the state of Tennessee Economic

Development Commission, and the fact that we had a tentative agreement for funding of about

twenty million dollars along with them supplying an existing facility to begin small volume

production of the American Roadsters up to potentially 1000 units per month. Wayne Butterfield was

also aware that Eco-Fueler was out of funds with which to operate.

10. Wayne Butterfield Represented that he was an investment advisor to 2,000 investors many of

whom could individually fund the Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) required by the banks in

Tennessee in order for them to agree to put up the remaining Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000).

To that end, Wayne Butterfield agreed that if the corporation would put on a private auto show for his

private list of 2,000 investors in Palm Springs, CA, that he would send an email solicitation to have

them attend the show.

11. At great expense, Eco-Fueler Corporation rented the Palm Springs Convention Center for

two days to hold a showing of the Roadster and the compressor. After having Defendants write a

letter on his behalf to his own investors, 7 days prior to the show Wayne Butterfield notified

Defendants that he had decided not to send a solicitation to his investors, on the ground that he did

not know enough about the venture and did not want to appear to act as a sponsor to the investment.

12. As a result of Wayne Butterfield reneging on his promise to solicit his investors to come to

the show and view the investment, only one person known to Butterfield came to the show. Eco-

Fueler Corporation was damaged to the sum of to be determined at trial.

13. In reliance upon his assurances through phone conversations and emails Eco-Fueler

Corporation went forward with the arrangements for a private show for Wayne Butterfields’ private

group of investors, and at substantial expense rented the Palm Springs Convention facility, shipped a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vehicle, a Compressor system, and a multitude of other supporting equipment along with arranging

for the presence of all the necessary personnel to put on the show and demonstrations for his clients.

When the opening day came for the vehicle show absolutely no one showed up including Wayne

Butterfield.

14. In seeking the show in Palm Springs, Wayne Butterfield acted deliberately and with malice to

deceive the CEO Jerry Hendricks and The Chairman of the Board John Green and to deliberately

injure the company by using his trusted position as a member of the board of directors to cause the

corporation to expend its cash resources thereby and bringing it near bankruptcy, which directly

damaged the value of the stock holdings of John S. Green in Eco-Fueler Corporation. . This was done

with malice aforethought to put the company in financial jeopardy, to create a situation whereby he

and his clandestine investor group would be able to acquire certain corporate and personal assets

(namely U.S. Method patent 5,863,186 for the compression of gasses using hydraulics in multistage

compressors) through the use of a bogus lawsuit to further injure the company and to use the judicial

system as a tool in a scheme to force cross-complainant Green to transfer the patents or face total

financial ruin for cross-complainant Green and Eco-Fueler Corporation, and to the damage of Eco-

Fueler Corporation thereby damaging the value of the stock holdings of John S. Green in such

company.

15. As a result of the cross-defendants breach of fiduciary duty, Cross-complainant Green has

suffered direct damages in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed

salary, plus loss of stock face value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.

16. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants, cross-

complainant Green is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-

defendants. . Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public

as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages

should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY)

(against Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith

Stewart, and Thomas Harris, jr.)



17. "The essential elements for a cause of action to be filed against an attorney without prior

court approval is stated in cal civil code 1710 (c)”

(c) This section shall not apply to a cause of action against anattorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client, where (1) theattorney has an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or (2) theattorney's acts go beyond the performance of a professional duty toserve the client and involve a conspiracy to violate a legal duty infurtherance of the attorney's financial gain.

18. Cross-Complaint Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief allege

that Cross Defendants Wayne and Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey James Stewart became members

of a civil conspiracy, along with attorney and cross Defendant Thomas W. Harris who furthered the

conspiracy by cooperation with idea of the conspiracy, and encouraged, aided and planned and

encouraged the conspiracy to use the present lawsuit in which Butterfields and Stewarts are members,

to threaten Cross Plaintiff Green in such a way as to obtain and agreement from him to transfer all of

his right title and interest in and to U.S. Method patent 5,863,186 for the compression of gasses using

hydraulics in multistage compressors.

19. Cross-Complaint Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that

Attorney Thomas Harris advised the members of the conspiracy that he, Harris, had substantial - 7 -

(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expertise in finding unintentional technical business errors and then offering his services in filing

bogus lawsuits against people who had made minor technical violations of the law, obtaining very

large settlements to such bogus lawsuits as a result of those errors, and that through this talent of

filing a lawsuit and through personal threats against the principals in Eco-Fueler Corporation that he

would be instrumental as a member of the conspiracy because of his ability to obtain the patent for

the business entity that was to be formed to exploit the patent and generate substantial profits for all

member of the conspiracy including Attorney Thomas Harris

20. Shortly after the 2006 Butterfield investment Cross-complainants Green and Hendricks made a

presentation to W. Butterfield and D. Butterfield. The presentation focused on the dramatic cost

savings in manufacturing as well as the revolutionary reduction in maintenance which has the effect

of reducing the operating costs of commercial compressors significantly. The Butterfields did not

respond to the proposal to fund a separate company for the purpose of exploiting the commercial

aspects of the compressor, but did say that the application of technology represented by the patent

would revolutionize the world.

21. Cross-complainant is informed and believe and on such information and belief, allege that

Plaintiffs Wayne and Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey James Stewart became members of a civil

conspiracy, along with attorney and Cross-Defendant Thomas W. Harris who furthered the

conspiracy by cooperation with idea of the conspiracy, and encouraged, aided and planned and

encouraged the conspiracy to use the present lawsuit in which Butterfields and Stewarts are members,

to threaten , Green in such a way as to obtain and agreement from him to transfer all of his right title

and interest in and to U.S. Method patent 5,863,186 for the compression of gasses using hydraulics in

multistage compressors.

22. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges

that Attorney Thomas Harris advised the members of the conspiracy that he, Harris, had substantial


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expertise in finding unintentional technical business errors, and then filing bogus lawsuits based on

those errors, and had in the past obtained very large settlements as a result, and that through this

talent of filing a lawsuit and through personal threats against the principals in such as Eco-Fueler

Corporation, and that he would be instrumental as a member of the conspiracy because of his ability

to obtain the patent for the business entity that was to be formed to exploit the patent.


that Attorney Harris joined the conspiracy based upon his representation, that he would not only

secure the patent for the conspirators, but would also use his techniques in making threats against the

person and the financial well being of Green and Hendricks to obtain the “Intellectual Property” that

is represented in possible other ideas and techniques that could be subject to patent that could

advance the profitability of the business of the conspirators.

24. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that

Attorney Thomas Harris offered to contribute the IP he would gain from Green together with

financing through contacts of both his own as well as the Investor Group that W. Butterfield had put

together. Based upon the enumerated talents of Attorney Thomas Harris, Attorney Thomas Harris

was admitted to the conspiracy for the purpose of making a profit through the exploitation of the

patent and other intellectual ideas and property of Green, and Attorney Harris would be given a share

of the profits because of his talents in obtaining the patent and IP without having to pay Green for the

transfer of the patent to the company that was planned, or has been created, “Dense Gas Corporation”

a Nevada Corporation.

25. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges,

As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Cross-Complainant Green has been

damaged by reason of the act of filing the within lawsuit had the direct consequence of putting the

Eco-Fueler Corporation, a company that needs a large financial commitment to it in order to exploit


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the patent, out of business. This act and the interference of Cross Defendants in the exploitation of

the patent have resulted in direct damages to Hendricks, Green, and all the shareholders of Eco-

Fueler Corporation, in unknown amounts due to the interference by Cross-Defendants and Cross

Defendant Harris, in the ongoing business affairs of the Cross-complainant in completely shutting

down the ongoing activities of the Cross-Complainant, including the Eco-Fueler Corporation, thereby

preventing the Defendants from getting their products to market.


Cross-Cross-complainant Tom Harris conspired to file the instant lawsuit for the apparent purpose of

seeking the return of investment funds paid to Eco-Fueler Corporation, by W. Butterfield and D.

Butterfield, whereas the sole purpose of using the suit was to use it as a threat to the livelihood and

ongoing ability to do business by Cross-Complainant Green and Cross-Complainant Hendricks unless

they agreed to transfer all right title and interest in and to the above referenced patent, together with

all intellectual property developed by Cross-Complainant Green since the issue of the patent.

27. Cross-Cross-complainant Harris held himself out as making a living or the last ten years by

finding people like the Butterfields and filing lawsuits based upon unintentional errors made by

people such as the Cross-complainants herein, solely for the purpose of collecting large settlements.

28. From the first contact, Attorney Harris acted as a principal and the leader of the group that was to

take the patent and technical knowhow and use resources available to him (Harris) to fund the

manufacture and sale of the compressor which is the object of the patent, all through the investor

group of Butterfields together with other investors.

29. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Cross-complainant have been damaged

in unknown amounts due to the interference by Cross-defendant Harris in the ongoing business

affairs of the Cross-complainant in completely shutting down the ongoing activities of the Cross-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complainant, which directly damaged the value of the stock holdings of John S. Green in Eco-Fueler

Corporation.

30. Attorney Harris met with Cross-complainant Green on February 3, 2010 for the alleged

purpose of settling the lawsuit. At that time, Harris made it clear that unless Cross-complainant

Green agreed to the undisclosed terms of a settlement agreement that required conveying Green’s

patents to Harris and his group that all of the Cross-complainants would face ruinous legal costs

defending themselves. He also stated that the Plaintiff’s were prepared to spend upwards of $600,000

pursuing the lawsuit in order to get the patent. It was also pointed out by Harris that this would stop

all business activity by all of the Cross-complainants, thereby ruining each of us as well as Eco-

Fueler Corporation. Harris stated that Butterfield’s had no interest in the return of their invested

cash, but were only interested in receiving the patent and the intellectual property.

31. At all times Harris held himself out as the moving party in the transaction as the promoter of this

new enterprise. There were many things I brought out to him during the discussions, one being the

outrageous outright lies in the complaint about the individual Cross-complainants. When he was

asked why the cross-defendants would want to do additional business with Cross-complainant Green,

after what they alleged in their complaint. His reply was, “he made up the allegations and not Wayne

Butterfield.”

32. Cross-Complainant Green asked for the Harris offer to be put in writing so it could be

considered. Green did not get a reply until just before the deadline to file an appearance with the

court. The “settlement offer” contained outrageous conditions requiring Cross-complainant Green to

work for the plaintiffs and create new patents and intellectual properties that would become the

property of Plaintiff’s enterprise for the next 10 years.

33. The Cross-Defendants and Cross-Defendant Harris should be found to have conspired between

themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear and extortion to convince the Cross-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complainants to transfer the patent referred to hereinabove, free and clear of any and all claims of

Cross-complainants to such Patent.

34. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey Stewart, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in

the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus loss of stock

value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.

35. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants the cross-

complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .


millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages should be

set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.

FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(CIVIL EXTORTION)

(Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart, and Thomas Harris, Jr)



California Penal Code § 518 provides, "Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his

consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or

fear, or under the color of official right."

Penal Code § 519 further provides:

Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, or any crime; or,To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,To expose any secret affecting him or them.

Penal Code § 523 further provides:

Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.

37. Cross-Defendant Tom Harris Jr. in a meeting with Cross-complainant Green on Feb. 3, 2010 on

behalf of himself and the Cross-Defendants in this case of made the following statements that fall

within the definition of extortion under California Penal Code § 518, 519. And § 523. Cross-Cross-

complainant Tom Harris Jr. has also composed and sent emails to Cross-complainants that contain

statements that also fall within the definitions of extortion under California Penal Code §518, § 519

(1) and (2) as well as § 523, as set forth above..

38. The following are statements from emails sent by Tom Harris:

1. Directed to Cross-complainant Jerry W. Hendricks stated “You and I both know that the process of this type of litigation is devastatingly expensive. The cost to you and to John Green isn't merely the expense of litigating the next few years. During the time the litigation is going on it will be killing all possible cash flow, it will prevent both of you from doing any type of new business.”

2. “Jerry, you know what happens in hardball litigation. Up to now I have been Mr. Nice Guy, but during litigation this will all change. I will remain open to discuss settlement, but the price and terms will go up as we proceed down the road. John will find that delaying settlement will not only cost a huge amount of money for attorneys' fees, etc., but we will be less willing to pay John cash for future contributions.”

3. To John Green: “I must demand that you and Jerry Hendricks immediately cease and desist from your ongoing illegal securities offerings. These activities violate a large number of criminal and civil laws. You must stop.”


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This last statement violates the Rules of Professional Conduct which specifically prohibit attorneys

from "threaten[ing] to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage

in a civil dispute." Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 5-100(A).

39. Cross-Defendant Harris attempted to use his expertise to go the limits of the law to

protect himself while executing the conspiratorial plan laid out with his partners but has

breeched the limits of that protection by his actions. On the meeting of Feb 3, 2010 Tom

Harris committed criminal extortion by threatening me with facing prison, my partner going to

prison among other things unless I would agree to transfer my patents and intellectual property

to his group. He stated if I complied with his demands it would all go away and we could continue with our vehicle business as usual. This specific activity is not protected by the

argument that it was done under the protection of the court as a settlement conference.

The following case and ruling demonstrates a similar activity by an attorney and illustrates the

mind set of one attempting to use the court for impunity to conduct outrageous and illegal

activity:

In Flatley v. Mauro, (2006) 39 C.4th 299, 46 C.R.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2, plaintiff entertainer brought an action against defendant attorney for civil extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful interference with economic advantage. The action was based on a letter and phone calls in which defendant demanded a seven-figure payment to settle claims that plaintiff had raped defendant’s client. Defendant filed a motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP suit. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeal held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because defendant’s demands constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law, which were not protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and petition. Held, affirmed.

40. Cross-Defendant Harris, on behalf of all of the parties to the conspiracy made the above

statements oral and written for the purpose of making the Cross-complainant fearful as follows:

1. I am fearful that it will cost $600,000 apiece for each of us to defend the lawsuit filed

herein for the purpose of obtaining the patent referred to above;

2. I have been put in fear that Harris will carry out his threats to make life “a living hell”

until the litigation is resolved in his favor;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. I am in fear that he will prevent us from being able to earn a living until we give in to

the demands Harris has been making on his behalf, and of his co-conspirators; and,

4. I am in fear that he will continue to tell people that we are, “defrauding investors and

that our activities are criminal.”

41. The Cross-Defendants and Cross-Defendant Harris should be found to have conducted

themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear to convince the Cross-complainants to transfer

the patent referred to hereinabove, free and clear of any and all claims of Cross-complainants to such

Patent, with no provision being made for paying or returning to Wayne Butterfield and Dianne

Butterfield, the money that they initially invested in Eco-Fueler Corporation.





set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

. (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OFEMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

(Against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield , Dianne Butterfield, and Thomas Harris jr.)




on February 3, 2010 Cross-Defendants by the use of criminal extortion for the purpose of

fraudulently obtaining my U.S. Patent no. 5,863,186 and intellectual property, deliberately inflicted

emotional distress upon the cross-complainant.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield, and

Dianne Butterfield, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in the amount of six

hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler

corporation of $21,000.000.00.


complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants.

exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ABUSE OF PROCESS

(Against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield , Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey Stewart and Thomas Harris jr.)



48. "The essential elements for a cause of action for abuse of process are the existence of an ulterior

purpose and the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the

proceedings in which it was issued, whether such a result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or

not."

49. See Kellar v. VonHoltum, 568 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.

31, 1997). "The test is whether the process was used...to compel a party to do a collateral act which

he is not legally required to do." See Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 239,

203 N.W.2d 835, 840 (1973). Al Hamilton, 644 A.2d at 191


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50. Shortly after being served with the Cross-Defendants complaint herein, their attorney Tom Harris

contacted me for a meeting to discuss dropping the lawsuit against the ECO-FUELER CORP., John

Green and Jerry Hendricks. That meeting took place in Eugene Oregon on Feb 3 2010. Cross-

Defendant Harris indicated his real interest was not in pursuing the lawsuit for the return of the

money invested by Butterfields, but to obtaining the U.S. patent and intellectual property that I had

developed over a 12 year period for the manufacture and development of high pressure Natural Gas

Compressors and systems.

51. During the course of the conversations Cross-defendant Harris told me that he had special

relationships with large oil companies, special political contacts and a group of very wealthy

investors ready to fund a project to manufacture and promote the technology. He indicated that the

terms for dropping the lawsuits was total transfer of all patents, all intellectual property and any

intellectual property in the future over the next 10 years that I might develop pertaining to

compression methods or designs, additionally to go to work for him and his investors. If I did not

agree all of his terms and conditions he and his clients were prepared spend $600,000.00 on just

attorney fees to pursue the law suit which would effectively put our vehicle company out of business.

Additionally he stated that I would not be able do any business for the next 20 years as a result of this

law suit

52. During the meeting, I quizzed Cross-Defendant Harris why his investors would want to be in

any kind of business relationship after the allegations they made in the complaint. To this Cross-

Cross-complainant Harris replied “I (Thomas W Harris) and not the plaintiffs had made the

allegations within the complaint”. Harris at all times held himself out as a principal of a transaction

that would create a new company using my Patents and Know.

53. The patents and intellectual property were never brought as an issue within the law suit. The

methods used by Harris fall within the definitions of “Ulterior purpose” as laid out within the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

definition of abuse of process (emphasis added) as it was clear that Harris and the Butterfields and

Stewarts were jointly seeking something clearly beyond the purpose of the law suit and its process.

54. In addition to the above, Attorney Harris sent many threatening and harassing emails with threats

to the business, reputation, finances and ability to conduct business in general. The emails were sent

for the purpose of coercing the Cross-complainant to agree to the unreasonable terms and conditions

which were offered.:

55. “Abuse of process is using the legal process to try to obtain a result that's beyond the scope

of the process.”

56. The Cross-Defendants and Cross Defendant Harris should be found to have conducted

themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear to convince the Cross-complainant to transfer

the patent referred to hereinabove, free and clear of any and all claims of Cross-complainant to such

Patent, with no provision being offered to be made, for just paying or returning to Wayne

Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield, the money that they initially invested in Eco-Fueler Corporation.

57. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey Stewart, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in

the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus loss of stock face

value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.





set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth. .

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(SLANDER)- 18 -

(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Against Cross Defendant Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield)

59. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 through 58 of this cross-complaint are

incorporated herein as though fully set forth.

60. On or about March 25th 2010 Wayne Butterfield made a phone call to a major stock

holder Phil Jauregui and made the following statements in an effort to slander the company, Jerry

Green and Jerry Hendricks personally by stating that the company was fraudulent and was only set up

for securing living expenses for John Green and Jerry Hendricks. This was done to further damage

the company, John Green and Jerry Hendricks as part of the ongoing scheme to destroy the company

and to enhance the plaintiffs’ position to extort patents and intellectual property from John Green.

61. These acts fall within the definition of slander under California Civil code 46 (1)(3).

62. The following are the notes Phil Jauregui made after his conversation with Wayne

Butterfield:

A. Wayne Butterfield said he has taken over the company today. I mentioned Jeff was

considering a law suit against him (Wayne Butterfield) for being a director and not divulging to the

other shareholders of what he believed was a fraud.

B. Wayne Butterfield said that “He was never a director.” His brother in law had been at

the Eugene, OR factory, met with John Green and was impressed with the concept but was not

impressed with John Green. He told Wayne that as long John Green was in charge, the company was

going nowhere.

C. Wayne Butterfield had found in past, John had been working with another corporate

entity, but that entity was dissolved and Eco-Fueler had taken its place. Wayne Butterfield said Eco-

Fueler Corporation was a fraudulent company along with other entities and was used only to further a

salary for John Green and Jerry Hendricks to live on, and that they were all a bunch of crooks that

were going to go to jail. Wayne Butterfield closed with, he thought the concept was an excellent idea

and that the technology encompassed in the patent and intellectual rights were so revolutionary that

they would change the world if it was placed in right hands (apparently theirs), without the help or

involvement of the John Green, Jerry W Hendricks or Eco-Fueler Corporation and that they would

bring it forth to the market.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California civil code:46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orallyUttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or otherMeans which: 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,Convicted, or punished for crime; 3. tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,Profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him generalDisqualification in those respects which the office or otherOccupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something withReference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has aNatural tendency to lessen its profits;

California civil code:

46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orallyUttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or otherMeans which: 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,Convicted, or punished for crime; 3. tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,Profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him generalDisqualification in those respects which the office or otherOccupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something withReference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has aNatural tendency to lessen its profits;

63. As a result of this intentional and outrageous conduct of Wayne and Dianne

Butterfield, Cross-Complainant GREEN, has suffered damages in the amount of $600,000.00, in

deferred salary, plus loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.

64. As a result of this intentional and outrageous conduct of Wayne Butterfield, Cross-

Complainant GREEN, is entitled to an award of exemplary damages.

65. Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the

public as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne

Stewart Butterfield has been receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three

Billion Dollars., exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-

Defendants net worth.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE PRAYER

WHEREFORE, cross-complainant prays judgment as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(FRAUD)

1. For judgment for breach of fiduciary duty against Cross-Defendants Wayne

Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart in an amount of

Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00)

2. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne

Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart;

3. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the damage to the Cross-Complainant

was a result of Fraud by Wayne Butterfield while a member of the board of directors of the Eco-

Fueler Corporation.

4. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that in committing fraud to injure the Eco-

Fueler Corporation, Jerry Hendricks and the Cross-complainant, Cross-Defandants Wayne

Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart acted with willful and

malicious intent to damage the all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler Corporation and Specifically the

Cross-Complainant.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)

5. For judgment for breach of fiduciary duty against Cross-Defendants Wayne

Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart in an amount of

Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00)


Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


was a result of breach of fiduciary duty as a member of the board of directors of the Eco-Fueler

Corporation, and the conspiratorial actions taken by the Cross-Defendants.

8. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that in breaching the fiduciary duty owed

to the Eco-Fueler Corporation, and the Cross-complainant, Cross-Defandants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart acted with willful and malicious intent

to damage the all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler Corporation and Specifically the Cross-

Complainant.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY)

9. For judgment against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the

estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty one million six

hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00) for losses due to the conspiratorial actions taken by the

Cross-Defendants.


Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and , the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr;


millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart

Butterfield has been receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three Billion

Dollars., The cross-Complainant asks that exemplary damages should be set at amounts

commensurate with the Cross-Defendants net worth.


was a result of the conspiratorial actions taken by the Cross-Defendants against the Eco-Fueler

Corporation;

12. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart , and Thomas Harris, jr, acted with willful

and malicious intent to damage the Eco-Fueler Corporation, all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler

Corporation, and thereby the Cross-Complainant;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION(CIVIL EXTORTION)

13. For judgment against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and

Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00) for losses

due to the conspiratorial actions in using Extortion as part of their illegal attempt to acquire assets

owned by the Cross-complainant.

14. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, and , Thomas Harris, jr; Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have

held themselves out to the public as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a

Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart Butterfield has been receiving transfers as a part of an apparent

estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-Complainant asks that exemplary damages

should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-Cross-complainants net worth.

15. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that damage to the Cross-Complainant was a result

of the illegal use of extortion by the Cross-Defendants;

16. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne

Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, and Thomas Harris, jr, acted with willful and

malicious intent to damage the Eco-Fueler Corporation, all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler

Corporation, and thereby the Cross-Complainant by the use of extortion;

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OFEMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

17. For judgment against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne

Butterfield, and Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars

($21,600,000.00) for losses due to intentional infliction of emotional distress.

18. For an award of exemplary damages against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, and , the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr; Since Wayne

Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-millionaires and

have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart Butterfield has been


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-

Complainant asks that exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-


SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(ABUSE OF PROCESS)

19. For judgment against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne

Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty

one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00) for losses due to Abuse of process.

20. For an award of exemplary damages against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, and , the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr; Since Wayne

Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-millionaires and

have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart Butterfield has been

receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-

Complainant asks that exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-


21. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that damage to the Cross-Complainant was

a result of the Abuse of process by the Cross-Defendants;

22. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,

Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, and Thomas Harris, jr, acted with willful

and malicious intent to damage the Eco-Fueler Corporation, all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler

Corporation, and thereby specifically the Cross-Complainant by Abuse of process;

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(SLANDER)

23. For judgment for Slander against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne

Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart , in an amount to be proven at trial;


Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, Edith Stewart and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

25. For costs of suit incurred herein; and,

26. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

DATED:July ____, 2010

____________________John S.GreenPRO-PER

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING:

I, Phillip L. Jauregui, hereby certify I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. That

on the ____ day of _____, 2010, I mailed a true copy of the within captioned “2 nd Amended Cross

Complaint for damages “ of John S. Green:

Thomas W. Harris, Jr. And To: Jerry W. Hendricks71-330 Highway 111 1211 NW Trenton AveRancho Mirage, CA92270 Bend, OR 97701


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

By placing a copy of such document in a sealed envelope and placing it into the United States Post

Office, with sufficient postage affixed.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the above is true and correct.

______________________________Phillip L. Jaruegui


2nd Amended Cross Compliaint (John)10!26!10

Documents

Transcript of 2nd Amended Cross Compliaint (John)10!26!10