Energy Invention Suppression Cases (Vesperman, 2007), and Stephen Meyer's reply

Gary Vesperman's Energy Invention Suppression Cases is a long compilation of inventors said to have been threatened, bought off or killed for their energy devices, dated 3 September 2007. The copy the archive has read is hosted at supremelaw.org. It has an entry headed "Stanley A. Meyer: Water Fuel Cell-Powered Car", and Meyer turns up again in the entries on Daniel Dingel and Ken Rasmussen.

It is kept here for one reason above the rest: it prints a reply from Stephen Meyer, Stan's twin brother, who read a draft of the entry and said it was wrong.

Stephen Meyer's reply

Vesperman prints the email under his entry, introduced as a warning "that the above is not wholly true", and adds that his attempts to get Stephen's corrections were unsuccessful:

From: Stephen Meyer Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:18 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: Terry Sisson on Stanley Meyer; Xogen

HI Guys, go to my web site www.hydrotechgroup.com

Oh! Gary Vesperman's write up is really bad and does not reflect true events about Stan and is completely out of context in many areas. It is my hope that this is article is corrected before publishing. Stephen Meyer his twin…

The compilation prints his email address and office telephone number as well; the archive leaves them out.

Three things date and place it. It was written ten days before the first of Stephen's long recorded interviews, on 24 March 2007, and the series ran to June (the interviews, checked): he was about to tell Stan's story himself, at length. The subject line shows the thread was about Xogen Power, the Canadian company whose patents cite Stan's, and a Terry Sisson, whom the archive has not identified. And his website, hydrotechgroup.com, has left nothing behind: the Internet Archive holds no capture of it. The corrections he wanted were never published, and the entry went out as it was.

Where the entry comes from

Almost none of the entry is Vesperman's own reporting. Taken piece by piece:

• The opening. The pure-water and sulphuric-acid sentence, the Section 101 sentence and the witnesses' statement are Frank Ogden's in Electronics World, January 1991. The witnesses' quotation has been silently corrected: the magazine printed "we concluded that Steve Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water"; Vesperman has "Stan Meyer". The witnesses were Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, Professor Michael Laughton and Dr Keith Hindley, and their visit is in the Griffin file.
• The legal history. Everything from the deposition of 18 October 1995 to the "Request to Retract" faxed to the Sunday Times on 2 December 1996 is copied from waterfuelcell.org, which carried Meyer's own WFC Public Notice to Inform. It is Meyer's side, reprinted as a narrative.
• The death. The coroner's sentence, "Decedent supposedly at lunch with N.A.T.O. officials at a Cracker Barrel diner…", matches the findings as they have been read aloud on camera.
• The criticism. Vesperman sends the reader to Eugene Mallove, whom he places in "Infinity Magazine" (it was Infinite Energy), by way of the Rex Research page.

Set against the record

• "A 1990 court case." The fraud case was Willis and Harper v. Meyer, filed in September 1993, tried in February and May 1996, and decided on 24 September 1996. 1990 is the year of the witnesses' visit, and of the examination by Laughton the Sunday Times said did not take place. The entry runs the two together.
• "Found … guilty." The case was a civil suit. The court gave judgment for the plaintiffs on a finding of "gross and egregious fraud"; there was no prosecution. The "$25,000" is the Sunday Times's figure. The court collected $40,515.72 from Meyer's accounts.
• Nine patents. The list is Meyer's hydrogen patents to 1992, but it stops short of the last one, 5,293,857 of March 1994, and leaves out the three solar and optical patents. By 1994 he had thirteen US patents.
• Section 101. The claim that a patent under Section 101 "is dependent on a successful demonstration of the invention to a Patent Review Board" is Ogden's, repeated. The law has no such board and no such step. Section 101 requires an invention to be useful, which an examiner can ask an applicant to support with evidence, and Meyer said he had shown operability to the Patent Office (New Zealand, 1989). A granted patent is not a certificate that a board watched the device work.
• "A type of stroke." Vesperman's own contribution, sent round by email when Meyer died, was that a stroke at the base of the brain matched Stephen's description. The coroner certified a ruptured cerebral aneurysm, as set out in The Day Stan Died.
• "It apparently has not been verified who were with Meyer." It had been. The two men at the table were Philippe Vandemoortele, the Belgian who had been funding Meyer since 1995, and his friend Marc Vancraeyenest, as The Day Stan Died sets out.

The Dingel entry

Meyer's name also appears in a note under Daniel Dingel, the Filipino inventor, quoting an update in Electrifying Times, vol. 10 no. 2, 2007, page 22: "The secret formula for Dingel's technology as well as the late Stanley Meyer's water cell car is a certain resonant frequency and voltage that allows much lower energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water than the standard electrolysis method requires." The magazine's contents page for that issue (Spring–Summer 2007), which survives in the Internet Archive, lists a separate article, "Stanley Meyers Water Fuel Vehicle", on page 19. The archive has not seen that issue.