From the Press: Ozzie Freedom Charged with Fraud by State of Texas Water 4 Gas "Ozzie Freedom" charged with FRAUD in Texas (Texas) AG Charges California-Based Business With Fraud In Water-To-Fuel Scheme AG Charges California-Based Business With Fraud In Water-To-Fuel Scheme "Run Your Car On Water" Scheme Could Leave Consumers All Wet Texas Sues Water4gas.com Is using Water for Fuel / Water4Gas a Hoax? Texas AG Cruelly Informs Us Water Can't Be Turned Into Gas ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WATER4GAS & WATER-FUEL DEBNUKED* *Definition from WikiPedia.org: "A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious."

This is just one of the unsolicited TV News telling
the public about ACTUAL DOUBLE MILEAGE
- click arrow to start movie:


Quick Jump: References ::: Updates ::: FREE Human Rights DVD

NOTE: I (Ozzie Freedom) am a researcher but not a lawyer and not a scientist, so my analysis below may miss by a mile (have imperfections). But the allegations against me and against Water4Gas, in comparison, miss by a hundred miles as you will see! So please keep this in mind when you find imperfections on either side - look for the balance of things, look for proportions.

ALLEGATION

DEBUNK

Public-address documents and rave allegations against me, Ozzie Freedom, and against Water4Gas, have been prepared by Assistant AG (Attorney General) Phillip Ledbetter and agent Pierce Cox, and signed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

These publications and allegations have severely damaged not only my own reputation but the reputation of the entire industry.

This is not an attack on me - I'm too small to be important - this is an attack on you, your family and against the environment.

In the points below you will be able to see exactly what happened, and judge for yourself where the truth stands.

Other attorneys are signed on the documents but it was Assistant AG Ledbetter and agent Cox who have been in direct contact with me

Documents published on me by the State of Texas referred to me repeatedly as if my real name was “Eyal Siman Tov” and Ozzie Freedom was another name used by me.

The use of the wrong name has happened before BUT ALSO AFTER I have informed the AG - in writing - that my name is not Eyal Siman Tov and that my real name, Ozzie Freedom, has been registered with Homeland Security, the Superior Court of Los Angeles, the DMV and Social Security Administration. Referring to me with a nonexistent name portrays me as a con artist trying to hide under bogus names. I protest – this is obviously propaganda to liter my reputation, started by David Wood who not only used my name improperly, but also used materials and graphics stolen from my websites.

The Texas AG claims that Water4Gas advertising is deceptive because Hydrogen On Demand cannot improve fuel economy nor reduce emissions. He wanted to know who are the scientists and automotive experts behind these claims, or what "proof" I have to show for my "claims"

I have presented the AG – and the public visiting my web site – with more than enough evidence that Hydrogen-On-Demand CAN and will improve fuel economy AND reduce emissions. Not by me but official publications by:

• NASA
• U.S. Patent Office
• U.S. Department of Transportation
• Detroit engineers
• Scientists from around the world.
• These are all posted in Water4Gas bookstore

I have also presented smog test results before/after Water4Gas, that clearly show a significant reduction in harmful emissions.

The AG requested this information in a procedure called “Civil Investigative Demand”, to which I responded with all this information, but after receiving the information he still claims that there is no science or automotive experts behind the technology.

Besides, read Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and show me where it is required BY TEXAS LAW that a merchant of any sort or any location has to "prove" or explain scientifically that what he sells does what he says?! What if we started demanding, 10,000 years too late, that every farmer must explain how his eggs develop into chicken before he can advertise them? Yes, such an action would be stopping all commerce at once, and therefore THIS IS THE REASON WHY TEXAS LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. It would destroy all commerce in Texas.

It gets even more ridiculous when you suppress books - who can guarantee that her book will indeed create the results "claimed"??? What if I published a book about a bunch of diets and diet combinations, and I "claimed" in my sales letter that with that book you could POSSIBLY reduce fat by 37% according to my research and my OWN experience, so what now? I have to "prove" to the Government of Texas that Mrs. Gonzales in New Mexico or Mrs. Nakamichi in Tokyo can lose 37% of their fat? As far as you and I know, they may be sneaking to the fridge at 2 am and giving my book a bad name!

Average miles per gallon gain of 35% bogus. Possibly double mileage is defined by the Texas AG as "outlandish claim" and a fraud.

18-wheeler getting 20% better mileage consistently is HUGE and much more than I have anticipated in my wildest dreams. I do not own an 18-wheeler but I have done this interview Jerry Young, owner of Young's Trucking company, and seen his entire Water4Gas installation on this truck on April 26, 2009:

(more details at water4gas.com/diesel.htm)

As I stated in my reply to the AG, in 2006 Water4Gas has been established as an experimenters club rather than a scientific or theoretical discussion. The average MPG gains reported to me, as all other results and solutions, were reported back to the public. This has never stopped. Now that we are 3 years later, the average is not 35% anymore. It is over 200%! There is nothing bogus here. I promised to be the central channel of communication, and report back everything I have learned from my experimenters. Using simple DIY hardware and DIY tuning, gains of up to 430% have been reported (I've met the person and seen the truck) but it was never promised nor is it possible to go around the world asking to test every vehicle and examine every report. It is an experimenters club based on mutual trust.

Besides, after seeing 60+ MPG in my own experimentation, me being anything BUT a mechanic or automotive expert, I can accept reports of better results from experimenters who actually understand engines. It is common sense and humility – because I am not the champion, only a researcher and a reporter.

You see, 35% is not the average of the industry at large, or Water4Gas in particular – it's much higher!!!

Yes, some experimenters got zero results, but by my tech support it has been proven that some people have simply done something wrong and then when we corrected them they turned out to be a success story. One famous case, Art Green from Norfolk, Virginia, more than doubled the mileage of his Chevy Avalanche truck in August 2008. This success story is still online HERE and the video at http://www.wvec.com/video/index.html?nvid=273832 as reported by Joe Flanagan.

Art Green could have fallen into the "no results" category. At first he was not getting any significant results. But Green asked our tech support line for help, and it was found that he was not using enough Baking Soda. We told him to up the amount and after a short while he reported a huge increase – from 20 to 40 MPG on the highway and from 8 to 20 MPG in town. Had Green been lazy or just a bit too negative to try again, he would have been counted as a "failure."

Green's story is not only a PUBLICLY KNOWN demonstration that the technology works and CAN POSSIBLY double mileage - but it is also proof that it can be done on LATEST MODELS and HEAVY VEHICLES (I think the 2008 Avalanche® in this story weighs 2.6 tons). And that it can be done by brave backyard mechanics such as Art Green, not only by big business. And it is my right to report it just as it is the right of Channel 13 and WVEC.com to report the story.

This story repeated itself more than once: all those who were persistent enough, including myself when I wasn't getting results in 2006 – have gained more than their investment in money and time. Normal publishers do not give any customer support beyond the quality of ink, paper and glue. Or download problems in the case of electronic books. Instead, I made sure that everybody who really tried got a fair chance of becoming a success story. Again, not by being an expert myself, but by delivering as promised the information donated by other experimenters, on what worked and what didn't work.

The story also demonstrates that persistence yields better results. Exactly one month before Art Green and his truck were featured on the above links, he has been featured on the same channel by the same reporter as having modest results with Water4Gas. So here is the story in sequence:

1. July 18, 2008: Joe Flanagan reports HERE about modest but impressive success, and the large video at http://www.wvec.com/video/index.html?nvid=264777
   
   
2. August 18, 2008: Joe Flanagan reports again HERE, now that Art Green was more than doubling his mileage, and the large video at http://www.wvec.com/video/index.html?nvid=273832
   
   
3. When somebody watches these videos, it is now publicly known FROM THE MOUTH OF OTHERS that $80 worth of hardware and 3 hours of installation can create a huge effect on a large vehicle. FROM A BOOK. There's a phenomena repeating itself in history: those who hated books and wanted them burned made a simple and true observation that a small book can create a huge effect when read by those who can move the ideas out of the page and into action.

Additionally, there is the TV news story aired by KATU-TV, about Ray Warren from Millersburg, Oregon, who doubled his pickup's mileage from 15 MPG to 30 MPG in town:

Ozzie Freedom deceived customers about income tax credits

My Terms and Conditions appear VERY visibly on my website and then again (just for the repetition) at the BEGINNING of my books and Water4Gas DVD's. It is stated clearly and unambiguously that the information is provided as-is and without claims on legality or results of any kind.

Specifically to the question of tax returns:

1. I have found the IRS Tax return claim on the Internet, and various water-fuel merchants were obviously copying the text from each other rather blindly.
2. Instead of copying the claim as-is, I first asked one of my attorneys about the claim (A TAX-SPECIALIST ATTORNEY), giving specific data.
3. After several days of research, that tax attorney could not find any conclusive answer. So I went ahead and researched it myself.
4. I found the IRS code and identified the chapter pertaining to what they call "clean-fuel vehicles."
5. The result was this document with precise copy of Chapter 12 of the IRS code as I have found it. Instead of putting only excerpts of the chapter, which might take things out of contexts, I left the entire chapter intact and only highlighted the relevant paragraphs.
6. I presented this document to the public, stating that I'm giving my OPINION of what it means. In contrary to the IRS web site (allowing credits only to specific car models), the Code itself promises to give tax returns to all clean burning fuels, and hydrogen is one of them, right there in the IRS Code and it is not my own interpretation.
7. I stated clearly that this is what I see in the law BUT sent the readers to consult with their local tax attorney or tax professional because my publication is worldwide while (1) the reader may be in a geographical location where these tax credits are not available, and (2) it depends on the fiscal year because the IRS changes its rules all the time.
8. Bottom line: I have done my duty as a researcher, because others before me have NOT done so. To title me fraud for reporting a research into Federal Government code is preposterous and suppressive of my Freedom of Expression. I did not criticize the Federal Government, I have not criticized the IRS - I gave them all due respect by referring to their written law rather than to my own thoughts - simply because I am not a legislator and I respect the law as it is written and published.

In his “Plaintiff Original Petition” the AG states that Ozzie Freedom “has no competent and reliable scientific studies to support his claims. For example, investigators have uncovered no reliable lab test results concluding that customers can expect the enhanced engine performance as described in the defendant’s online testimonials.”

This allegation was published on April 23, 2009 AFTER I have informed the AG on March 27 that (1) I have no scientific or automotive background and have never portrayed myself as having such, and (2) as said our activity is based on open source experimentation and reporting, right from the beginning, and (3) faxed them more than thirty references including six U.S. Patents regarding hydrogen on demand, and many other references from official publications of NASA, U.S. Department of Transportation, engineers and scientists. And (4) faxed them a smog test before and after Water4Gas.

These publications are more visible in the Water4Gas bookstore. I posted them there as a response to the AG's initial demand, informed them of the posting and informed them that THIS is the basis of my research, and yet the AG ignored these in the “Plaintiff Original Petition” as if they never seen the information. Did anybody read my letter? (I verified with Phillip Ledbetter that my letter indeed arrived). Or did they just ignored to respond with common sense? Maybe somebody is commanding them to ignore common sense?

The AG had to completely ignore hardcore evidence such as smog test that I've presented so they can claim that I have NOTHING to show for.

In paragraph 8.3 of “Plaintiff Original Petition” the AG says: “In response to a Civil Investigative Demand issued by the State of Texas, Defendants failed to produce any competent and reliable evidence substantiating their claims that their products can increase gas mileage, reduce motor vehicle emissions, or enhance engine power.”

a.) First of all, on March 27, 2009, I have sent all the above listed documentation, clearly showing that the technology in general is not bogus. The claim that I failed to produce any evidence is not true. The evidence that was sent to the AG was both from our experimenters AND from government official publications. On March 30 I verified with Assistant AG Phillip Ledbetter that they have received the documentation.

b.) Additionally, this allegation must have been copied from a template. What do they mean by “their products”??? Water4gas is not a product. As I stated in my fax to the AG on March 27: “All I have sold so far, from 2006 until today, was an ongoing research, not a product.” I am a writer selling books with my own viewpoints and opinions. My "product", if any, is an informed reader. With 300 information-choked pages, I have definitely informed as promised.

And not only this statement – in my fax I volunteered to describe to the AG in great detail the entire philosophy behind my operation, showing that Water4Gas is NOT a product but is rather a body of knowledge. This is critical to understand. If the AG and his staff would have actually read my online manuals, they would have noticed that hydrogen or no hydrogen, the technology proposed for reducing emissions and enhancing fuel economy is much wider and deeper than just a jar with water. THAT wouldn't work on modern cars and I have discovered that for myself and declared this in many ways. The sales letter makes it very clear, for instance, that driving techniques are part of the deal. And in my second manual there are many major chapters regarding everything else that may save fuel IN CONJUSNCTION WITH HYDROGEN, from tire pressure to oil and fuel additives and much more. It's not in small print at the end of the manual but a major and complete chapter on each such method. And each of those has been researched in relation to Hydrogen On Demand so it's not just a compilation of gas saving tips from an old magazine.

Water4Gas is a not a “product” because I cannot guarantee that any experimenter really does what it takes to achieve results. By the way, nearly 100% of whoever said “no results” was only referring to mileage, because some readers don't care about the environment or neglect to acknowledge the extra power and smoothness of the engine. Anyway my readers' experimentation could have gone wrong in many ways, for instance I have personally heard from people who refused to change their driving habits despite my clear instructions that they may have to do that in order to POSSIBLY gain mileage – and this is in the manuals so if they only bothered to read it they would have found out IN TIME to get a refund if they don't like the idea that somebody tells them to change their driving.

Above all, the book sales letter clearly states that there are FIVE different systems that can be made with my information. Deduct the drinking water system and we are left with FOUR different automotive systems aimed at lower emissions and better gas economy. Is it my duty to determine or track what system the customer is going to be using? It's a book, not a product or a “system.”

In my letter to the AG of March 27, I have dedicated a large section titled “SO WHAT IS WATER4GAS ANYWAY?” to clarify to the AG that Water4Gas is NOT a system, but a generalized education and then every experimenter gives it their own interpretation. I have no idea if they choose to use system X or system Y, I cannot control if they make “small” changes that are actually crucial to their results, and there I can also not see or control if they build a system made with 1 fuel cell, 6 fuel cells or 12 fuel cells (all shown and taught in my books). This is not a national delivery system whereby certified mechanics are trained to install a specific system and are trained to do it standardly and tune it standardly and road-test it standardly.

My "product" is a BOOK for do-it-yourselfers.

The AG of Texas has assumed jurisdiction to protect Texans from so-called deceptive commerce

The Water4Gas website does not coerce or twist the arm of Texans, or anybody else, to complete a sales transaction. The website offers to complete a sales transaction all by itself.

Transactions were done through ClickBank automatically and there was no distinction between localities.

Additionally to the above mentioned Terms and Conditions clearly state that:

• "No warranty is expressed or implied concerning the suitability of the Technology or related information, including IRS Tax Write-Off information, for any particular application, circumstance or geographical area."
  
  
• "3. The Informational Product Customer will not use the Technology in violation of any local, state, or federal law."

In paragraph 9.12 of “Plaintiff Original Petition” the AG claims that “charged water” as a treatment for body ailments has not been approved by the FDA as a medical device or drug.

I have never claimed that “charged water” are a medical device or a drug, or that they have been approved by the FDA. First, my publications are sold to dozens of countries where the FDA has no teeth and no say. Second, I have anticipated potential protest by medical authorities in the USA and elsewhere, therefore it has been clearly stated in my manuals that the use of the information is at the reader's very own risk. Contrary to paragraph 9.12, I have never promised or claimed that “charged water” were “safe or effective to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent a disease of the body.” My research stumbled upon an interesting use of electrolysis as was revealed to me by Bill Lang of Gulf Laboratories, so I have included it in my research reports.

Here's a copy of the disclaimer from inside the charged water chapter - and it has been there all along, VERY visible on the first page and everybody who has taken the trouble to read my book has seen it - you cannot miss it if you tried (emphasis from original book):

DISCLAIMER
click to see screenshot NOTHING DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER IS MEANT TO CURE OR DIAGNOSE ANY DISEASE. I'M NOT JUST SAYING IT - I MEAN IT. THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL ADVICE EVEN IF I WANTED TO, BECAUSE I AM NOT A DOCTOR AND I HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF BECOMING A DOCTOR (OR MARRYING ONE :-)

I personally know people who insist on having health benefits from the water, but once again I am not playing doctor - only repeating their story as-is. I've received written testimonials and have presented them to my readers under my freedom of expression.

I sell books, not instruments or materials! My book not approved as a drug??? There are 142 million books at the Library of Congress. Quick quiz: how many of these books have been approved as drugs?

[Zero]

The AG claims that I have victimized the citizens of Texas by selling them a product that rips off their money. Sounds like I've twisted their arm or have hidden the terms and disclaimers.

The Terms and Conditions are posted on my web site BEFORE anyone purchases my online manuals. As is stated clearly in these Terms and has been brought to the attention of the AG:
(1) there is no claim as for results or legality or anything else,

(2) it is stated that the technology is PURELY EXPERIMENTAL, and

(3) it is posted and declared that any consumer can get his money back IN FULL and NO QUESTIONS asked just by asking ClickBank, the book merchant, for a refund. All refunds are made as immediately as possible and there are no intentional delays or deductions made by ClickBank.

(4) The consumer has SIXTY days to look at the information and if they don't like it they can get a refund. Again, from ClickBank, I didn't sell the books, I just wrote them. But I have checked the integrity of ClickBank and they are SPOTLESS - haven't missed a payment in 10 years of operation.

In fact, I was taking all of the risk because anybody could and still can buy the information, copy or print it – and then refund their money right away. I suspect that this has happened more than once with certain criminals who have purchased the information, refunded their purchase and then turned around and started selling the product as if it was their own. Most customers were decent so I did not sue anybody for abusing the refund or for any other reason.

There is no reason for me to get the customers money and then refund it. First, because for every charge back I lose $18 to ClickBank, and then in general because ClickBank is the one charging and collecting the money, not me, and they hold a significant portion of my pay for SIX pay periods (12 weeks), just to cover possible refunds. If the public were not satisfied with their purchase, I would not have made enough money to continue the research.

In paragraph 19.1- as far as I understand the AG objects that I can freely post testimonials from my readers and students, and seems to demand that every backyard mechanic's story must be scientifically proven.

(1) Unlike some imitators that I will not name, who have copied my testimonials and posted them as their own, all the testimonials on any of Water4Gas websites and all publications under my control have been completely true stories of my experimenters that have arrived at my desk.

(2) I have no means to scientifically “prove” each and every story that lands on my desk, and I have no intention of doing so in any foreseeable future. Show me who can!

(3) This is a clear violation of my right to communicate letters that I have received.

(4) The public is not a bunch of morons and they can understand that if Joe Bloe claims 38% MPG gain and John Doe claims 77%, and somebody else claims only 12%, then there is no standard and it all depends on circumstances including their skills and proper implementation.

The AG demanded in “Plaintiff Original Petition”, dated April 23, that I stop referring or representing testimonials as “proof” of results.

This is after (1) I have changed the website by adding a bold red script above the testimonials, to limit what the not-too-bright may deduct, and (2) informed the AG on March 27 that this has been done. They either haven't read my letter, or haven't looked at the corrected website, or they don't care, or they are under pressure from above to ignore common sense and keep pushing. I can't see any other explanation.

My note just before the testimonials on the main page says: “The user testimonials displayed below are authentic stories from Water4Gas experimenters (including their goofy spelling), however we have NOT verified them, and we CANNOT guarantee in any way, shape or form the accuracy or repeatability of these results - even if your vehicle is of the exact same model.”

And just before the testimonials on the books sales letter it says: “The user testimonials displayed below are authentic stories from Water4Gas experimenters, however I have NOT verified them, and I CANNOT guarantee in any way, shape or form the accuracy or repeatability of these results - even if your vehicle is of the exact same model. There are many more factors than just vehicle model, and you will learn from Water4Gas manuals how to experiment with each factor.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: There was nothing wrong with the display of authentic testimonials before the change! It is NOT normal practice IN ANY INDUSTRY to put strong limiters before every display of testimonials - they just display them as they are: testimonials of users, period. So I added the above note out of goodwill for the citizens of Texas, and what does the AG do? Ignore it completely.

Were they sincerely making a point, or just harassing me on as many fronts as possible?

In general, the AG has portrayed the name Ozzie Freedom as a crook who misled the citizens of Texas

I am a writer, so I wrote a pair of books. Unlike most of my publishing competition who have sold books that THEY never tested, I tested and experimented (and failed many times at great expense and risk) to come up with a body of information that I can testify for myself is doable by anybody who has basic technical skills. The fact that I am NOT a mechanic and NOT a scientist helped keep things simple, because I avoided anything that required special automotive knowledge OR serious scientific background.

I presented the information to the world and got featured on TV news stations all over the world, without even knowing about it, because it only happened when a reported heard about the fabulous results that a local guy was getting with his truck or car.

This happened, just for one example, with the a story that was aired on a TV network from Greenville, South Carolina, USA. This TV news cover story focused on Water4Gas. According to this news piece, the Mayor of a small town called Honea Path (south of Greenville in Anderson County), was experimenting with all sorts of alternative fuel options. Mayor Lollis Meyers decided to equip his entire police force fleet – six vehicles – with Water4Gas systems to save his taxpayers money. Chief of Police, David King, was interviewed saying that some people around town didn't believe it, and naturally he was skeptical too in the beginning. But as he reported, his SUV gained an 8 MPG increase.

This entire sequence of events happened without my intervention - they just found Water4Gas on the Internet, made their own decisions, made it work without my help, and then the TV station picked it up:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwjG90085A
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9vTK5w7Ixc

The AG request that I have injured 3,197 Texans and that I should reimburse the State for all damages

The AG has not presented to this date names or numbers of actual complaints! According to my numbers, the amount of people who considered themselves injured by my books has been surprisingly low. I was expecting 20% refunds but the actual number of refunds in the past nearly 2 years was only 0.5%

The AG has portrayed that I have injured their public in general and am holding on to money made by defrauding innocent victims. The truth is that I have invested so much money in tech support staff during 2008, that now I have almost nothing left to pay the mortgage with, while I still owe the IRS a quarter million dollars. No, I am not miserable, I am proud of what I did to serve the public, and will continue to earn from my writing so I can pay back the IRS and much more to the tax collectors. I am focusing my writing efforts on methods to take America out of the economic mud by providing new business opportunities to small businesses and home based businesses.

The AG has demanded in the “Plaintiff Original Petition”, dated April 23, that I remove all references from my advertising regarding IRS tax refunds

All such references have been removed, months before the Civil Investigative Demand of February 2009. I left the IRS code excerpts on the download page of the books, for readers only, because customers were still requesting for the information. The materials state expressly that what I have written is my personal opinion. However, there is not a word about IRS or taxes on my websites yet the AG still demands that I stop advertising it. If the are referring to documents my readers-only zone, in my humble opinion this is none of their business. My personal opinion communicated to my readers have nothing to do with advertising and no authority may step into this zone unless I was promoting illegal acts or prohibited materials such as stolen software.

Anyway, the IRS tax information stated and still states that "Remember: this is information only and NOT A TAX ADVICE - you must always consult with your local tax attorney or accountant regarding the legalities in your country or state FOR THE TAX YEAR YOU'RE SUBMITTING, before using this information."

Have a look at IRS CODE Regarding Qualified Vehicles - see what it says on page 5: "For vehicles that may be propelled by both a cleanburning fuel and any other fuel, your deduction is generally the additional cost of permitting the use of the clean-burning fuel." Am I imagining things - or did the IRS Code just say what I think it said?

The overall impression from the demands coming out of the State of Texas is that Freedom of the Press means nothing and also that Hydrogen-On-Demand is bogus no matter what you say.

Apart from Freedom of the Press, the truth is that we have an excellent and decent industry. However, in the overall picture we have a struggle between two forces:

(1) The lazy guys who would not experiment and would give up too soon – these people expect a magic pill served on a silver platter, but on the other hand we have...

(2) Excellent and risk-taking backyard experimenters who are willing to do what the automakers won't do for obvious financial reasons, and that is to try and find how Hydrogen CAN be implemented affordably for the benefit of the environment and the economy.

If Hydrogen-On-Demand was bogus, then why would the government agencies and scientists mentioned above say differently? What would they earn by lying to us?

And why would police forces and cities such as Beloit, Wisconsin, and Honea Path, South Carolina allow it on their cars and trucks?

• http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/06/hydrogen-boosts-beloit/
• http://gazettextra.com/photos/2009/apr/06/15712/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9vTK5w7Ixc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwjG90085A

The AG is using Consumer Affairs person David Wood as legal "proof" (EXHIBIT A) that supplemental hydrogen is bogus

First of all, why does the Great State of Texas need to rely on the OPINION of a reporter? With all the oil fields income, I'm sure the State can afford a serious scientific research.

Secondly, judging by his articles, David Wood has not read even the freely posted Frequently Asked Questions on my website, not to mention getting Hydrogen-On-Demand education or experimenting for himself with one little system, not even a stupid little thing from a free online video. He only quoted scientists saying that "the idea is preposterous, with one saying the energy created would "not amount to a hill of beans."

If Mr. Wood would have bothered to study my answer to this question, he would have noticed that the question of energy balance, between hydrogen energy and energy from the battery, is one very big misconception. The energy does not come from the hydrogen and does not come from the battery!!! The energy comes from the gasoline!

That's what NASA, the U.S. Patent Office and the U.S. Department of Transportation have been trying to tell us for decades: that a SMALL amount of supplemental hydrogen will cause the regular fuel, be it diesel or gasoline, to burn more completely. The extra energy is derived from the more complete combustion process. Less waste = extra energy. It's not "free" energy because you have to pay for the system and the water or at least your time to mess with it all. But that's the equation, the extra comes from LESS WASTE. It's not my opinion, it is the scientific viewpoint and I simply studied it from the scientists who did not THINK about it but went ahead and sunk their teeth and their fingers into the subject.

As a child in Israel I've read a story about a teenager boy in ancient times, who was appointed to apprentice for an old oil merchant. The boy started filling up the bottles in a sloppy way thus (1) wasting oil, and (2) making a mess. When the oil merchant asked him to be more precise, the boy said he's doing his very best and nothing better is possible, so some waste and dirt must be an inevitable fact of the trade. The oil merchant asked the boy to give him a penny. The boy took a penny out of his pocket and gave it to the merchant. In those days the penny had a small hole in the middle, and was about as large as a quarter. The oil merchant placed the penny on top of a bottle and started filling oil - right into the middle of the penny. When the bottle was full, he asked the boy to pick up the coin and examine it. The boy, to his amazement, could not find ONE drop of oil on the coin! He of course realized that it WAS possible to (1) prevent waste, and (2) prevent the place from becoming dirty and stinking.

Can you relate this story to our energy waste and harmful emissions?

In April 24, 2009, David Wood published another article against Water4Gas, stating that "According to the state's enforcement action, the defendant's do-it-yourself manuals on installing water-to-fuel devices in vehicles do not reduce fuel costs, increase gas mileage or enhance engine performance."

Unlike Wood's claims, it is not according to the state - it is according to what HE wrote in July 2008...

Can you read time tables? See the sequence in the list of references below:

1. July 08: David Wood publishes an untested opinion,
2. July 08-April 09: Wood's article gets copied by other media such as usatoday.com, zimbio.com and silobreaker.com - all without questioning its validity,
3. April 23, 09: AG feeds on Wood's untested opinion (see EXHIBIT A),
4. THE VERY NEXT DAY, Wood feeds on AG's allegations ...based on Wood's opinion...
5. Gotcha! Debunked!

Even more severely than bashing my books, David Wood started a witch hunt by tying Water4Gas with my religion, which started a hate wave in other media and steered the attention away from the FACTS - David Wood never tested Water4Gas, and only based his OPINION on the OPINION of others. Those others may very well be reputable scientists, but they have not tested Water4gGas either. Or read my books in full (I could have given them free books for the asking). What they have tried 40 years ago is not what is offered in my publications. Read Wood's article again, and if you have read my books or watched my Water4Gas DVD's then you have seen the stark difference for yourself.

There's a score of difference: safely heating the fuel, electronic enhancers, home-made fuel additives, driving habits TO MATCH the technology, doubling the amount of HHO to match the needs of different engines, and much more. Wood's allegations may come from guts, but not from brains. He calls the Internet "Scam Central" and blindly attacks.

Any attack from a non-experimenter is blind because the person is attacking an imaginary enemy. You can't say diet X doesn't work if you have never tried it, and tried it STANDARDLY and gave it a fair chance AND interviewed others who have tried THAT diet rather than a collection of opinions about witch doctors of times past. I only published my books broadly AFTER testing the different aspects in my own cars, taking risks as an experimenter while overcoming my own fears and my own skepticism. I was a reporter too, Mr. Wood, but a responsible reporter!

WOOD'S PROPAGANDA (1) doesn't deal with the facts, (2) puts my head on a pike in order to discredit the entire industry and worst of all (3) makes a mix of snide remarks about my religion, my inventions, my awards and my other websites, as if they are remotely relevant to the facts on water fuel. He defines me "mysterious" while I have my entire life biography published on the Internet for everybody to see (just Google "ozzie freedom resume" without quotes and it's the very first thing that comes up). Where is Wood's biography? I couldn't find one.

THE AG STAFF, AND ESPECIALLY PHILLIP LEDBETTER AND PIERCE COX WHO WORKED ON THE CASE, BY PICKING UP WOOD'S PROPAGANDA AND DISPLAYING IT AS PART OF STATE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, HAVE FURTHER ADDED INSULT TO INJURY AND DAMAGED MY GOOD NAME ALL OVER THE WORLD.

David wood in his first article about Water4Gas claims that he tried to contact me but there was no response.

No such request ever arrived at my desk - in 2008 I hired 30 people (simultaneously at different locations and time zones) at suicidal expense in order to answer every possible call, fax , email and help desk request. If Wood would have seriously tried, he could have gotten a hold of me personally, or get to me though my staff, or even arrange a Californian reporter friend to come and see me personally at our weekly meetings open to the public. I had people come from across the USA, from Hawaii and even from Japan to see me in person - an insisting reporter could have made it through.

And even if I was deaf and ignorant, why wouldn't David Wood try and talk to any of the other experimenters in the industry? They are all over the place (just Google or YouTube and you'll find all the lions of the industry including George Wiseman, Jim Tarantola, Zero Fossil Fuel, Smack, Bill & Tom Lang, Denny Klein and 1000's others). To protect the public, Channel 13 and KATU-TV could have given him access to the people they had already interviewed, namely Art Green and Ray Warren.

But no, it was not important enough when you're about to smash somebody's reputation to "protect" the consumer. And it was not important enough for the AG to bring up even one single experimenter or developer. Ask any attorney, judge, reporter, investigator or researcher, if this is the proper way to investigate a subject as important to national security as fuel and energy.

The AG of Texas has assumed applicability of DTPA law to a case of self-conducted download of informational products

Below are the statutes cited in the Plaintiff Original Petition as possible violations and reasons for the investigation. In my search of Texas case decisions, I did not find one single court case where this 42-year-old law was used to attack any informational product advertisement! One possible reason: if this was attempted, there would be serious First-Amendment implications. Trying to apply these subsections to self-download of informational products is obviously a stretch of the DTPA law beyond applicability (my counter statements highlighted below):

Sec. 17.46 Deceptive Trade Practices Unlawful (definitions)

  (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code. [None of these is true per the circumstances detailed here]

  (b) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, the term "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

(5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not; [my sales letter promised VERY informative informational products, with POSSIBLE but not PROMISED results - and this promise has been grossly over-delivered beyond any commercial standards]

(7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; [my sales letter stated without fail when the informational product was a PDF download, and when I changed to online manuals this change was stated so clearly that you needed to be blind to miss it. There was never a representation that it is nothing but an informational product of the kind specified at any given time of commerce. When I switched from PDF, I left the PDF document for several months, for the benefit of those slow customers who were expecting to still find this "grade" of product in the download area - again this is beyond the standards of commerce and totally pro-consumer at great expense because at the peak of sales I had to pay $1,800 a month to the hosting company for the large amount of downloads]

(12) representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law [my Terms and Conditions stated clearly that there are no claims on workability or legality of the informational product. Beyond all standards of commerce, every consumer has been presented with a very visible cashback guarantee stating that they have an extended remedy in the shape of full refund for any reason whatsoever - they could be unhappy about my language, the information itself, their results, the quality of photos, or the fact that the book was sending them to Home Depot but they could not find any downtown Katmandu]

(24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed. [from the very first day there was always more than enough information for any visitor to understand that this is a DO IT YOURSELF informational product, that no physical product comes with it, and that the technology described in it is purely experimental]

Additionally, in a separate page I've posted a pertinent portion of a Federal appeal court decision, where billboard company Lamar Outdoor Advertising brought suit against the State of Mississippi over its ban on alcohol ads. 

In this Federal appeal court decision the state argued that any such ads would not be entitled to First-Amendment protection because the ads would be 'misleading' for various reasons. The court, however, rejected the state's arguments.  Read for yourself what it said and why. Based on this case, all that the State of Texas can do is issue an order for me to make more disclosures (disclaimers).

I have examined the extent of disclosure in my Terms and Conditions and found no possible way to make them clearer or more extensive. But if the State of Texas has any suggestions on making it better, I'm listening. (The fact that I'm listening proved by my voluntary actions indicated in letter to AG of March 27, 2009)

References:

• Water4Gas bookstore provides all of the scientific background of the technology that I could put my hands on, and it's a lot right there
  
  
• Terms and Conditions posted on Water4Gas are more strict than the Pope, stating in the very first paragraph of the disclaimer that "No warranty is expressed or implied concerning the suitability of the Technology or related information, including IRS Tax Write-Off information, for any particular application, circumstance or geographical area. The Technology is purely experimental; therefore no specific results can be guaranteed for any model of vehicle, marine vessel, generator, or for any other purpose or application. Use of the Technology, as well as related devices or information, is at the Informational Product Customer's own risk. The Technology is not intended for use in violation of State or Federal regulations. Compliance with any State or Federal regulations, where applicable, is the responsibility of the Informational Product Customer. 1 Freedom, Inc. and its employees, executives, distributors and affiliates shall not be held responsible for how the Informational Product Customer uses the Technology, related knowledge or any device thereof. The Technology and related knowledge are Public Domain and are provided to the Informational Product Customer as a service to save him time and money." (Older versions from 2008 and 2007 contain these terms too!)
  
  
• July 17, 2008: first propaganda article by David Wood on ConsumerAffairs.com (see definition of propaganda by WikiPedia)
  
  
• March 16, 2009: I received this Civil Investigative Demand dated February 25, 2009
  
  
• March 27, 2009: 14-page fax letter to the AG (I verified with Assistant AG Phillip Ledbetter that it has been received in full)
  
  
• April 23, 2009: Official allegations by the State of Texas and Plaintiff Original Petition published without notifying me, signed by the following Texas AG staff
  
  
• Undated Plaintiff Original Petition is linked from the above document
  
  
• April 24, 2009: second propaganda article by David Wood on ConsumerAffairs.com
  
  
• Definitions page
  
  
• Federal Court decision Lamar Outdoor Advertising vs. the State of Mississippi

UPDATES:
 


This is just the beginning. Updates will be published here as they come. Stay tuned.

Help needed from you: Please email a video testimonial of your success story: MPG, emissions, drinking water, etc. (or a signed textual testimonial with a photo of yourself with your test vehicle). I WILL SEND A COPY OF YOUR TESTIMONIAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Specify if you would be willing to come to Texas and testify against the allegations that the technology is bogus.If you also want to send a copy of your testimonial to the Attorney General, and I'm not asking you to, then their contact info is here and address here. Remember, it is your survival, too.

Help BACK TO YOU: I invested $25,000 of my own money and purchased 2,000 DVD's on human rights. Each DVD contains 30 short but heart-touching movies (listed below), which are one by one the principles of human rights adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. It also contains "United" - the award winning music video against hate and discrimination that will leave your eyes wet. All these movies have been produced in 2006 and are of superb quality. Included: beautiful 41-page printed booklet with all the principles. 18 languages in each DVD: English, Latin American Spanish, Castilian Spanish, French, German, Swedish, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Hungarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Hebrew and Greek.

PLEASE GET THIS HUMAN RIGHTS DVD AND SHOW IT TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW AT HOME, SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CLUB, AS WELL AS YOUR CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE OR MOSQUE.

U.S.A. residents: I will mail you a free copy of this Human Rights DVD if you donate ANY amount (to help with the shipping costs) via PayPal and attach your ACTUAL mailing address if different than the one on your PayPal profile. Any amount is ok because it is only a donation, not a sale. If you you cannot cover the shipping cost then just send a few pennies. But if you CAN afford it, please donate something extra for those who cannot afford it. You decide how much, I have no estimations or prediction and this is all done on a goodwill basis from both you and I. Thank you! No need to ask if we still have DVD's - if you see this here then there are MORE THAN ENOUGH left.

Canada and the world: Please make sure your donation is adequate for estimated shipping costs because I will not be able to carry the load of shipping worldwide from my pocket. Also PayPal is going to charge me $4.20 for every international transaction, so it would help if you add at least $4.20 to your donation. The package used for international shipping is an envelope (9" by 6", or 23cm by 15cm) weighing 5 ounces (160 gram). Use the postal service postage calculator http://ircalc.usps.gov/ to estimate shipping from USA to you (as far as I can see almost any country would cost me $4.40 or $4.60). Thanks!

Once I get the orders, I will quickly ship the Human Rights DVD to you:

The 30 Human Rights movies:
#1: We Are All Born Free and Equal
#2: Don't Discriminate
#3: The Right to Life
#4: No Slavery
#5: No Torture
#6: You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go
#7: We're All Equal Before the Law
#8: Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law
#9: No Unfair Detainment
#10: The Right to Trial
#11: We're Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty
#12: The Right to Privacy
#13: Freedom to Move
#14: The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live
#15: Right to a Nationality
#16: Marriage and Family
#17: The Right to Your Own Things
#18: Freedom of Thought
#19: Freedom of Expression
#20: The Right to Public Assembly
#21: The Right to Democracy
#22: Social Security
#23: Workers' Rights
#24: The Right to Play
#25: Food and Shelter for All
#26: The Right to Education
#27: Copyright
#28: A Fair and Free World
#29: Responsibility
#30: No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights.

Sincerely,

Ozzie Freedom
Founder, Water4Gas

P.S. Please make personal copies of all the evidence and stories/movies.

P.P.S. Please copy this entire page to your website or blog. The links are pre-configured to work on any server, so all you have to do is copy and paste. Leave this note intact so others may copy it too. Copying the entire page is best, but if you cannot do this then just place a link to http://water4gas.com/debunk/ - Thank you!