1 John S.

Green
36123 Camp Creek
2 Springfield, Oregon 97478
tel (541) 606-2422
3
PRO-PER
4

5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DESERT DIVISION, INDIO BRANCH
7

8
DIANNE STEWART BUTTERFIELD, ) Case No.: No. linc-092312
9 individually, and as of the Trustee of the E. & )
)
G. Stewart, Family revocable Trust of 12-1-09, )
10
and WAYNE, BUTTERFIELD, )
11 )
Plaintiffs, ) 2 nd AMENDED
12 vs. ) CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
)
13 )
ECO-FUELER CORPORATION, An Oregon, )
14 corporation, J. W. Hendricks, also known as , )
JERRY HENDRICKS, JOHN S. GREEN and )
) 1. FRAUD
15 DOES , 1 TO 200 inclusive, ) 2. BREACH OF FIDUCERY DUTY;
16 ) 3. CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY;
Defendants ) 4. CIVIL EXTORSION;
17 _____________________________________ ) 5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18 JOHN S. GREEN ) 6. ABUSE OF PROCESS;
) 7. SLANDER;
)
19 Cross-Complainant )
)
20 )
vs.
)
21 )
DIANNE STEWART BUTTERFIELD, )
22 individually, and as the Trustee of the E. & G. )
Stewart, Family revocable Trust of 12-1- )
23
09,WAYNE BUTTERFIELD, THE ESTATE )
)
24 OF GEOFF STEWART, E.AND G. )
STEWART , THOMAS W HARRIS. JR. and )
25 DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, )
)
26
Cross Defendants )
27

28

- 1 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 COMES NOW the Cross-Complainant John S. Green for himself
2
Cross-Complainant John S. Green cross-complains and allege as follows:
3
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4
(FRAUD)
5

6 (Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield)

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

10 defendant, Attorney Tom Harris used references to statutes in his original complaint on behalf of
11
the cross defendants and thereby relinquished his right to strike or object to references to statutes
12
contained within this cross complaint.
13
. "The essential elements for a cause of action to be filed against an attorney without prior
14

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

16 (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
17 attorney has an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or (2) the
attorney's acts go beyond the performance of a professional duty to
18 serve the client and involve a conspiracy to violate a legal duty in
furtherance of the attorney's financial gain.
19

20 2. Wayne Butterfield a Corporate a Director of the Eco-Fueler corporation Represented that he was
21
also an investment advisor to 2,000 investors many of whom could individually fund the Four
22
Million Dollars ($4,000,000) required by the banks in Tennessee as a condition for them to put up
23
the remaining Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000) to start production of the Eco-Fueler
24

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

26 show for his private list of 2,000 investors in Palm Springs, CA, that he would send an email
27
solicitation with a telephone follow up to have them attend the show. Wayne Butterfield used
28
this as a fraudulent inducement to the other directors of said corporation, to get them to agree to
- 2 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 expend large sums of money, resources and time. Based on Wayne Butterfields representations
2 the Eco-fueler corporation enter into contract with the City of Palm Springs Ca. to use their
3
facilities for the show and presentation,
4
3. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and on such information and belief, allege that
5

6
Wayne Butterfield violated California civil code 1572, (1),(4), (5), by knowing he had no

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

8 fraudulent contract between himself, the Cross-Complainant, Jerry Hendricks and the Ecofueler
9
Corporation.
10

11 Cal civil code 1572. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter,
consists in
12 any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or
with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or
13 to induce him to enter into the contract:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one
14 who does not believe it to be true;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
15 5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

16 4. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and on such information and belief, allege that
17 Wayne Butterfield additionally violated California civil code 3294 Knowing we had the primary
18 funding commitment he, with fraud, malice and intent clandestinely did not invite anyone. This

19 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
20
property.
21
Cal civil code 3294.
22 (a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising
from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing
23 evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression,
fraud, or malice,the plaintiff, in addition to the actual
24 damages, may recover damages
for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
25
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
26 apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to
27 cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is
carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious
28 disregard of the rights or safety of others.
(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person

- 3 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that
person's rights.
2

3
5. As a result of the cross-defendants fraud, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct
4
damages in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus
5
loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.
6
6. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants, cross-complainant
7
Green is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .
8
Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-
9
millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages
10
should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
11

12

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14
(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
15
(Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield)
16

17
7. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated
18
herein the same as though fully set forth.
19

20
8. As a result of the conditions of Wayne and Dianne Butterfields’ offer that was made to Eco-
21
Fueler Corporation to invest in the company, Wayne Butterfield was made one of three directors of
22
the corporation. By insisting on having that position, certain duties and responsibilities were taken on
23

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

25 holders of the corporation. Being in this position of director he had intimate knowledge of the
26 financial well being of the corporation along with any other information he could request and receive.
27
Wayne Butterfield was appointed a member of the Board of Directors in January 2006, and elected to
28

- 4 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 the Board of Directors at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors and Shareholders. He
2 has not resigned that position.
3
9. Wayne. Butterfield was made aware of negotiations with the state of Tennessee Economic
4
Development Commission, and the fact that we had a tentative agreement for funding of about
5

6
twenty million dollars along with them supplying an existing facility to begin small volume

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

8 also aware that Eco-Fueler was out of funds with which to operate.
9
10. Wayne Butterfield Represented that he was an investment advisor to 2,000 investors many of
10
whom could individually fund the Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) required by the banks in
11
Tennessee in order for them to agree to put up the remaining Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000).
12

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

14 private list of 2,000 investors in Palm Springs, CA, that he would send an email solicitation to have
15
them attend the show.
16
11. At great expense, Eco-Fueler Corporation rented the Palm Springs Convention Center for
17
two days to hold a showing of the Roadster and the compressor. After having Defendants write a
18

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

20 Defendants that he had decided not to send a solicitation to his investors, on the ground that he did
21
not know enough about the venture and did not want to appear to act as a sponsor to the investment.
22
12. As a result of Wayne Butterfield reneging on his promise to solicit his investors to come to
23
the show and view the investment, only one person known to Butterfield came to the show. Eco-
24

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

26 13. In reliance upon his assurances through phone conversations and emails Eco-Fueler
27
Corporation went forward with the arrangements for a private show for Wayne Butterfields’ private
28
group of investors, and at substantial expense rented the Palm Springs Convention facility, shipped a
- 5 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 vehicle, a Compressor system, and a multitude of other supporting equipment along with arranging
2 for the presence of all the necessary personnel to put on the show and demonstrations for his clients.
3
When the opening day came for the vehicle show absolutely no one showed up including Wayne
4
Butterfield.
5

6
14. In seeking the show in Palm Springs, Wayne Butterfield acted deliberately and with malice to

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

8 injure the company by using his trusted position as a member of the board of directors to cause the
9
corporation to expend its cash resources thereby and bringing it near bankruptcy, which directly
10
damaged the value of the stock holdings of John S. Green in Eco-Fueler Corporation. . This was done
11
with malice aforethought to put the company in financial jeopardy, to create a situation whereby he
12

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

14 (namely U.S. Method patent 5,863,186 for the compression of gasses using hydraulics in multistage
15
compressors) through the use of a bogus lawsuit to further injure the company and to use the judicial
16
system as a tool in a scheme to force cross-complainant Green to transfer the patents or face total
17
financial ruin for cross-complainant Green and Eco-Fueler Corporation, and to the damage of Eco-
18

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

20 company.
21
15. As a result of the cross-defendants breach of fiduciary duty, Cross-complainant Green has
22
suffered direct damages in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed
23
salary, plus loss of stock face value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.
24
16. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants, cross-
25
complainant Green is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-
26
defendants. . Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public
27
as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages
28
should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
- 6 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1

3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

4
(CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY)
5
(against Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith
6

7
Stewart, and Thomas Harris, jr.)

8 16. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated

9 herein the same as though fully set forth.

10

11
17. "The essential elements for a cause of action to be filed against an attorney without prior
12
court approval is stated in cal civil code 1710 (c)”
13
(c) This section shall not apply to a cause of action against an
14 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
15 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
16 furtherance of the attorney's financial gain.

17

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

19 that Cross Defendants Wayne and Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey James Stewart became members
20
of a civil conspiracy, along with attorney and cross Defendant Thomas W. Harris who furthered the
21
conspiracy by cooperation with idea of the conspiracy, and encouraged, aided and planned and
22
encouraged the conspiracy to use the present lawsuit in which Butterfields and Stewarts are members,
23

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

25 his right title and interest in and to U.S. Method patent 5,863,186 for the compression of gasses using
26 hydraulics in multistage compressors.
27
19. Cross-Complaint Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that
28
Attorney Thomas Harris advised the members of the conspiracy that he, Harris, had substantial
- 7 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 expertise in finding unintentional technical business errors and then offering his services in filing
2 bogus lawsuits against people who had made minor technical violations of the law, obtaining very
3
large settlements to such bogus lawsuits as a result of those errors, and that through this talent of
4
filing a lawsuit and through personal threats against the principals in Eco-Fueler Corporation that he
5

6
would be instrumental as a member of the conspiracy because of his ability to obtain the patent for

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

8 member of the conspiracy including Attorney Thomas Harris

9
20. Shortly after the 2006 Butterfield investment Cross-complainants Green and Hendricks made a
10
presentation to W. Butterfield and D. Butterfield. The presentation focused on the dramatic cost
11
savings in manufacturing as well as the revolutionary reduction in maintenance which has the effect
12

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

14 respond to the proposal to fund a separate company for the purpose of exploiting the commercial
15
aspects of the compressor, but did say that the application of technology represented by the patent
16
would revolutionize the world.
17
21. Cross-complainant is informed and believe and on such information and belief, allege that
18

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

20 conspiracy, along with attorney and Cross-Defendant Thomas W. Harris who furthered the
21
conspiracy by cooperation with idea of the conspiracy, and encouraged, aided and planned and
22
encouraged the conspiracy to use the present lawsuit in which Butterfields and Stewarts are members,
23
to threaten , Green in such a way as to obtain and agreement from him to transfer all of his right title
24

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

26 multistage compressors.
27
22. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges
28
that Attorney Thomas Harris advised the members of the conspiracy that he, Harris, had substantial
- 8 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 expertise in finding unintentional technical business errors, and then filing bogus lawsuits based on
2 those errors, and had in the past obtained very large settlements as a result, and that through this
3
talent of filing a lawsuit and through personal threats against the principals in such as Eco-Fueler
4
Corporation, and that he would be instrumental as a member of the conspiracy because of his ability
5

6
to obtain the patent for the business entity that was to be formed to exploit the patent.

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

8 that Attorney Harris joined the conspiracy based upon his representation, that he would not only
9
secure the patent for the conspirators, but would also use his techniques in making threats against the
10
person and the financial well being of Green and Hendricks to obtain the “Intellectual Property” that
11
is represented in possible other ideas and techniques that could be subject to patent that could
12

13 advance the profitability of the business of the conspirators.

14 24. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that
15
Attorney Thomas Harris offered to contribute the IP he would gain from Green together with
16
financing through contacts of both his own as well as the Investor Group that W. Butterfield had put
17
together. Based upon the enumerated talents of Attorney Thomas Harris, Attorney Thomas Harris
18

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

20 patent and other intellectual ideas and property of Green, and Attorney Harris would be given a share
21
of the profits because of his talents in obtaining the patent and IP without having to pay Green for the
22
transfer of the patent to the company that was planned, or has been created, “Dense Gas Corporation”
23
a Nevada Corporation.
24

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

26 As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Cross-Complainant Green has been
27
damaged by reason of the act of filing the within lawsuit had the direct consequence of putting the
28
Eco-Fueler Corporation, a company that needs a large financial commitment to it in order to exploit
- 9 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 the patent, out of business. This act and the interference of Cross Defendants in the exploitation of
2 the patent have resulted in direct damages to Hendricks, Green, and all the shareholders of Eco-
3
Fueler Corporation, in unknown amounts due to the interference by Cross-Defendants and Cross
4
Defendant Harris, in the ongoing business affairs of the Cross-complainant in completely shutting
5

6
down the ongoing activities of the Cross-Complainant, including the Eco-Fueler Corporation, thereby

7 preventing the Defendants from getting their products to market.

9
26. Cross-complainant Green is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges
10
Cross-Cross-complainant Tom Harris conspired to file the instant lawsuit for the apparent purpose of
11
seeking the return of investment funds paid to Eco-Fueler Corporation, by W. Butterfield and D.
12

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

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

15
they agreed to transfer all right title and interest in and to the above referenced patent, together with
16
all intellectual property developed by Cross-Complainant Green since the issue of the patent.
17
27. Cross-Cross-complainant Harris held himself out as making a living or the last ten years by
18

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

20 people such as the Cross-complainants herein, solely for the purpose of collecting large settlements.
21
28. From the first contact, Attorney Harris acted as a principal and the leader of the group that was to
22
take the patent and technical knowhow and use resources available to him (Harris) to fund the
23
manufacture and sale of the compressor which is the object of the patent, all through the investor
24

25 group of Butterfields together with other investors.

26 29. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Cross-complainant have been damaged
27
in unknown amounts due to the interference by Cross-defendant Harris in the ongoing business
28
affairs of the Cross-complainant in completely shutting down the ongoing activities of the Cross-
- 10 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 complainant, which directly damaged the value of the stock holdings of John S. Green in Eco-Fueler
2 Corporation.
3
30. Attorney Harris met with Cross-complainant Green on February 3, 2010 for the alleged
4
purpose of settling the lawsuit. At that time, Harris made it clear that unless Cross-complainant
5

6
Green agreed to the undisclosed terms of a settlement agreement that required conveying Green’s

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

8 defending themselves. He also stated that the Plaintiff’s were prepared to spend upwards of $600,000
9
pursuing the lawsuit in order to get the patent. It was also pointed out by Harris that this would stop
10
all business activity by all of the Cross-complainants, thereby ruining each of us as well as Eco-
11
Fueler Corporation. Harris stated that Butterfield’s had no interest in the return of their invested
12

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

14 31. At all times Harris held himself out as the moving party in the transaction as the promoter of this
15
new enterprise. There were many things I brought out to him during the discussions, one being the
16
outrageous outright lies in the complaint about the individual Cross-complainants. When he was
17
asked why the cross-defendants would want to do additional business with Cross-complainant Green,
18

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

20 Butterfield.”
21
32. Cross-Complainant Green asked for the Harris offer to be put in writing so it could be
22
considered. Green did not get a reply until just before the deadline to file an appearance with the
23
court. The “settlement offer” contained outrageous conditions requiring Cross-complainant Green to
24

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

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

27
33. The Cross-Defendants and Cross-Defendant Harris should be found to have conspired between
28
themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear and extortion to convince the Cross-
- 11 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 complainants to transfer the patent referred to hereinabove, free and clear of any and all claims of
2 Cross-complainants to such Patent.
3
34. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield,
4
Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey Stewart, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in
5

6
the amount of six hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus loss of stock

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

8
35. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants the cross-
9
complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .
10
Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-
11
millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages should be
12
set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
13

14
FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
(CIVIL EXTORTION)
16

17

18 (Against Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart,
Edith Stewart, and Thomas Harris, Jr)
19
36. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated
20

21 herein the same as though fully set forth.

22 California Penal Code § 518 provides, "Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his
23 consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or
24
fear, or under the color of official right."
25
Penal Code § 519 further provides:
26

27
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
28 third person; or,

- 12 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, or
any crime; or,
2 To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
3 To expose any secret affecting him or them.

4
Penal Code § 523 further provides:
5

6
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,
7 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
8 obtained by means of such threat.
9

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

11 behalf of himself and the Cross-Defendants in this case of made the following statements that fall
12
within the definition of extortion under California Penal Code § 518, 519. And § 523. Cross-Cross-
13
complainant Tom Harris Jr. has also composed and sent emails to Cross-complainants that contain
14
statements that also fall within the definitions of extortion under California Penal Code §518, § 519
15

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

17 38. The following are statements from emails sent by Tom Harris:
18
1. Directed to Cross-complainant Jerry W. Hendricks stated “You and I both know that
19 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
20 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.”
21

22 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,
23 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.,
24
but we will be less willing to pay John cash for future contributions.”
25
3. To John Green: “I must demand that you and Jerry Hendricks immediately cease and
26 desist from your ongoing illegal securities offerings. These activities violate a large
number of criminal and civil laws. You must stop.”
27

28

- 13 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 This last statement violates the Rules of Professional Conduct which specifically prohibit attorneys
2 from "threaten[ing] to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage
3
in a civil dispute." Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 5-100(A).
4
39. Cross-Defendant Harris attempted to use his expertise to go the limits of the law to
5

6
protect himself while executing the conspiratorial plan laid out with his partners but has

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

8 Harris committed criminal extortion by threatening me with facing prison, my partner going to
9
prison among other things unless I would agree to transfer my patents and intellectual property
10
to his group. He stated if I complied with his demands it would all go away and we could
11 continue with our vehicle business as usual. This specific activity is not protected by the
12
argument that it was done under the protection of the court as a settlement conference.
13
The following case and ruling demonstrates a similar activity by an attorney and illustrates the
14
mind set of one attempting to use the court for impunity to conduct outrageous and illegal
15

16 activity:
In Flatley v. Mauro, (2006) 39 C.4th 299, 46 C.R.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2, plaintiff entertainer brought an
17
action against defendant attorney for civil extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
18 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
19 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
20
defendant’s demands constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law, which were not protected
21 by constitutional guarantees of free speech and petition. Held, affirmed.

22

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

24 statements oral and written for the purpose of making the Cross-complainant fearful as follows:
25
1. I am fearful that it will cost $600,000 apiece for each of us to defend the lawsuit filed
26 herein for the purpose of obtaining the patent referred to above;
27 2. I have been put in fear that Harris will carry out his threats to make life “a living hell”
28 until the litigation is resolved in his favor;

- 14 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 3. I am in fear that he will prevent us from being able to earn a living until we give in to
2 the demands Harris has been making on his behalf, and of his co-conspirators; and,

3 4. I am in fear that he will continue to tell people that we are, “defrauding investors and
that our activities are criminal.”
4
41. The Cross-Defendants and Cross-Defendant Harris should be found to have conducted
5

6
themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear to convince the Cross-complainants to transfer

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

8 Patent, with no provision being made for paying or returning to Wayne Butterfield and Dianne
9
Butterfield, the money that they initially invested in Eco-Fueler Corporation.
10
42. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants the cross-
11
complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .
12

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

14 millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages should be
15
set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
. (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
18 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
19
(Against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield , Dianne Butterfield, and Thomas Harris jr.)
20
43. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated
21

22
herein the same as though fully set forth.

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

24 on February 3, 2010 Cross-Defendants by the use of criminal extortion for the purpose of
25
fraudulently obtaining my U.S. Patent no. 5,863,186 and intellectual property, deliberately inflicted
26
emotional distress upon the cross-complainant.
27

28

- 15 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 45. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield, and
2 Dianne Butterfield, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in the amount of six
3
hundred thousand dollars,( $600,000.00) in differed salary, plus loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler
4
corporation of $21,000.000.00.
5

6 46. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants the cross-
7 complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants.
8 exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
9

10

11 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12
ABUSE OF PROCESS
13
(Against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield , Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey
14 Stewart and Thomas Harris jr.)
15

16 47. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 of the Cross-Complaint are incorporated

17 herein the same as though fully set forth.

18
48. "The essential elements for a cause of action for abuse of process are the existence of an ulterior
19
purpose and the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the
20
proceedings in which it was issued, whether such a result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or
21

22 not."

23 49. See Kellar v. VonHoltum, 568 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
24 31, 1997). "The test is whether the process was used...to compel a party to do a collateral act which
25
he is not legally required to do." See Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Props., Inc., 295 Minn. 232, 239,
26
203 N.W.2d 835, 840 (1973). Al Hamilton, 644 A.2d at 191
27

28

- 16 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 50. Shortly after being served with the Cross-Defendants complaint herein, their attorney Tom Harris
2 contacted me for a meeting to discuss dropping the lawsuit against the ECO-FUELER CORP., John
3
Green and Jerry Hendricks. That meeting took place in Eugene Oregon on Feb 3 2010. Cross-
4
Defendant Harris indicated his real interest was not in pursuing the lawsuit for the return of the
5

6
money invested by Butterfields, but to obtaining the U.S. patent and intellectual property that I had

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

8 Compressors and systems.

9
51. During the course of the conversations Cross-defendant Harris told me that he had special
10
relationships with large oil companies, special political contacts and a group of very wealthy
11
investors ready to fund a project to manufacture and promote the technology. He indicated that the
12

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

14 intellectual property in the future over the next 10 years that I might develop pertaining to
15
compression methods or designs, additionally to go to work for him and his investors. If I did not
16
agree all of his terms and conditions he and his clients were prepared spend $600,000.00 on just
17
attorney fees to pursue the law suit which would effectively put our vehicle company out of business.
18

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

20 law suit
21
52. During the meeting, I quizzed Cross-Defendant Harris why his investors would want to be in
22
any kind of business relationship after the allegations they made in the complaint. To this Cross-
23
Cross-complainant Harris replied “I (Thomas W Harris) and not the plaintiffs had made the
24

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

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

27
53. The patents and intellectual property were never brought as an issue within the law suit. The
28
methods used by Harris fall within the definitions of “Ulterior purpose” as laid out within the
- 17 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1 definition of abuse of process (emphasis added) as it was clear that Harris and the Butterfields and
2 Stewarts were jointly seeking something clearly beyond the purpose of the law suit and its process.
3
54. In addition to the above, Attorney Harris sent many threatening and harassing emails with threats
4
to the business, reputation, finances and ability to conduct business in general. The emails were sent
5

6
for the purpose of coercing the Cross-complainant to agree to the unreasonable terms and conditions

7 which were offered.:

8 55. “Abuse of process is using the legal process to try to obtain a result that's beyond the scope
9
of the process.”
10
56. The Cross-Defendants and Cross Defendant Harris should be found to have conducted
11
themselves in such a manner as to attempt to use fear to convince the Cross-complainant to transfer
12

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

14 Patent, with no provision being offered to be made, for just paying or returning to Wayne
15
Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield, the money that they initially invested in Eco-Fueler Corporation.
16
57. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of William Harris, Wayne Butterfield,
17
Dianne Butterfield and Geoffrey Stewart, Cross-complainant Green has suffered direct damages in
18

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

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

21
58. As a result of the intentional and outrageous conduct of the cross-defendants the cross-
22
complainant is entitled to exemplary damages from each and every one of the cross-defendants. .
23
Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-
24
millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, exemplary damages should be
25
set at amounts commensurate with the cross-defendants net worth.
26 .
27
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
28
(SLANDER)
- 18 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
(Against Cross Defendant Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield)
2
59. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 through 58 of this cross-complaint are
3
incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
4
60. On or about March 25th 2010 Wayne Butterfield made a phone call to a major stock
5
holder Phil Jauregui and made the following statements in an effort to slander the company, Jerry
6 Green and Jerry Hendricks personally by stating that the company was fraudulent and was only set up
7 for securing living expenses for John Green and Jerry Hendricks. This was done to further damage
8 the company, John Green and Jerry Hendricks as part of the ongoing scheme to destroy the company
9 and to enhance the plaintiffs’ position to extort patents and intellectual property from John Green.
10 61. These acts fall within the definition of slander under California Civil code 46 (1)(3).
11 62. The following are the notes Phil Jauregui made after his conversation with Wayne
12 Butterfield:
13 A. Wayne Butterfield said he has taken over the company today. I mentioned Jeff was
14 considering a law suit against him (Wayne Butterfield) for being a director and not divulging to the
15 other shareholders of what he believed was a fraud.
16 B. Wayne Butterfield said that “He was never a director.” His brother in law had been at
17 the Eugene, OR factory, met with John Green and was impressed with the concept but was not
18 impressed with John Green. He told Wayne that as long John Green was in charge, the company was
19 going nowhere.
20 C. Wayne Butterfield had found in past, John had been working with another corporate
21 entity, but that entity was dissolved and Eco-Fueler had taken its place. Wayne Butterfield said Eco-

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 bring it forth to the market.

- 19 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
California civil code:
2 46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
Uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
3 Means which:
4
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
Convicted, or punished for crime;
5 3. tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
Profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general
6 Disqualification in those respects which the office or other
7
Occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
Reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a
8 Natural tendency to lessen its profits;

9 California civil code:

10
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
11 Uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
Means which:
12 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
Convicted, or punished for crime;
13
3. tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
14 Profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general
Disqualification in those respects which the office or other
15 Occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
Reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a
16
Natural tendency to lessen its profits;
17

18 63. As a result of this intentional and outrageous conduct of Wayne and Dianne
19 Butterfield, Cross-Complainant GREEN, has suffered damages in the amount of $600,000.00, in
20 deferred salary, plus loss of stock value in Eco-Fueler corporation of $21,000.000.00.
21

22 64. As a result of this intentional and outrageous conduct of Wayne Butterfield, Cross-
23 Complainant GREEN, is entitled to an award of exemplary damages.
24 65. Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the
25 public as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne
26 Stewart Butterfield has been receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three
27 Billion Dollars., exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-
28 Defendants net worth.

- 20 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
THE PRAYER
2

3 WHEREFORE, cross-complainant prays judgment as follows:

4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(FRAUD)
5
1. For judgment for breach of fiduciary duty against Cross-Defendants Wayne
6
Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart in an amount of
7
Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00)
8
2. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne
9
Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart;
10
3. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the damage to the Cross-Complainant
11
was a result of Fraud by Wayne Butterfield while a member of the board of directors of the Eco-
12
Fueler Corporation.
13
4. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that in committing fraud to injure the Eco-
14

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

16 Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart acted with willful and
17 malicious intent to damage the all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler Corporation and Specifically the
18
Cross-Complainant.
19

20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21
(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)

22
5. For judgment for breach of fiduciary duty against Cross-Defendants Wayne
23
Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart in an amount of
24
Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00)
25
6. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne
26 Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart;
27

28

- 21 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
7. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the damage to the Cross-Complainant
2
was a result of breach of fiduciary duty as a member of the board of directors of the Eco-Fueler
3
Corporation, and the conspiratorial actions taken by the Cross-Defendants.
4
8. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that in breaching the fiduciary duty owed
5
to the Eco-Fueler Corporation, and the Cross-complainant, Cross-Defandants Wayne Butterfield,
6 Dianne Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart acted with willful and malicious intent
7 to damage the all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler Corporation and Specifically the Cross-
8 Complainant.
9
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (CIVIL CONSPIRIRACY)
11 9. For judgment against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, the

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

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

14 Cross-Defendants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21
commensurate with the Cross-Defendants net worth.

22
11. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the damage to the Cross-Complainant
was a result of the conspiratorial actions taken by the Cross-Defendants against the Eco-Fueler
23
Corporation;
24
12. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,
25
Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart , and Thomas Harris, jr, acted with willful
26
and malicious intent to damage the Eco-Fueler Corporation, all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler
27
Corporation, and thereby the Cross-Complainant;
28

- 22 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (CIVIL EXTORTION)
3 13. For judgment against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, and
4 Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00) for losses
5 due to the conspiratorial actions in using Extortion as part of their illegal attempt to acquire assets
6 owned by the Cross-complainant.
7 14. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield,
8 Dianne Butterfield, and , Thomas Harris, jr; Since Wayne Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have
9 held themselves out to the public as Multi-millionaires and have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a
10 Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart Butterfield has been receiving transfers as a part of an apparent
11 estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-Complainant asks that exemplary damages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
21

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

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

24 ($21,600,000.00) for losses due to intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

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

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

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

- 23 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1
receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-
2
Complainant asks that exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-
3
Defendants net worth.
4

5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(ABUSE OF PROCESS)
6
19. For judgment against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne
7
Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, Edith Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr , for Twenty
8
one million six hundred thousand dollars ($21,600,000.00) for losses due to Abuse of process.
9
20. For an award of exemplary damages against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,
10
Dianne Butterfield, and , the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart and Thomas Harris, jr; Since Wayne
11
Butterfield and Dianne Butterfield have held themselves out to the public as Multi-millionaires and
12
have held out Geoffrey Stewart as a Multi-Billionaire, and Dianne Stewart Butterfield has been
13
receiving transfers as a part of an apparent estate plan to give her Three Billion Dollars., The cross-
14
Complainant asks that exemplary damages should be set at amounts commensurate with the Cross-
15
Defendants net worth.
16
21. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that damage to the Cross-Complainant was
17
a result of the Abuse of process by the Cross-Defendants;
18
22. For a finding of fact and conclusion of law that Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield,
19
Dianne Butterfield, the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart, and Thomas Harris, jr, acted with willful
20
and malicious intent to damage the Eco-Fueler Corporation, all of the stock holders of Eco-Fueler
21
Corporation, and thereby specifically the Cross-Complainant by Abuse of process;
22

23 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24 (SLANDER)

25
23. For judgment for Slander against Cross-Defendants Wayne Butterfield, Dianne
26
Butterfield, and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart , in an amount to be proven at trial;
27
24. For an award of exemplary damages against cross-Cross-complainants Wayne
28
Butterfield, Dianne Butterfield, Edith Stewart and the estate of Geoffrey James Stewart:

- 24 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1

2
AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
3
25. For costs of suit incurred herein; and,
4
26. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
5

6
DATED:
7 July ____, 2010
8

10

11

12
____________________
13 John S.Green
PRO-PER
14

15

16

17

18

19

20
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING:
21

22

23 I, Phillip L. Jauregui, hereby certify I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. That
24
on the ____ day of _____, 2010, I mailed a true copy of the within captioned “2 nd Amended Cross
25
Complaint for damages “ of John S. Green:
26

27 Thomas W. Harris, Jr. And To: Jerry W. Hendricks

71-330 Highway 111 1211 NW Trenton Ave
28 Rancho Mirage, CA92270 Bend, OR 97701

- 25 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)
 1

2 By placing a copy of such document in a sealed envelope and placing it into the United States Post
3
Office, with sufficient postage affixed.
4
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the above is true and
5 correct.
6

7 ______________________________
Phillip L. Jaruegui
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 26 -
(AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)