Posts Tagged ‘Everett Baker’

Fireclean Issues Update Regarding Lawsuit Against George Fennell and Steel Shield for False Advertising

Friday, July 1st, 2016

Today saw action in the court room regarding Fireclean’s federal lawsuit against suit against George Fennell and Steel Shield for false advertising. Fennell had petitioned the court to dismiss the case. However, presiding Judge Ellis saw enough evidence to go forward with the suit.

Consequently, Fireclean issued this statement on Facebook regarding this order.

FireClean LLC is pleased to inform its customers, dealers, and followers that Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia denied George Fennell and Steel Shield’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Dismiss this morning. Judge Ellis ruled that *all* of the Defendants’ false statements, including statements that equate FIREClean® to Crisco™ and Wesson™ oils, are actionable under principles of defamation and false advertising. The case proceeds.

We would like to thank everyone for their support and wish you a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Below is a copy of the order.

fireclean vs fennell

Fireclean has also filed a separate lawsuit against Vuurwapen Blog, its owner Andrew Touhy and Everett Baker alleging defamation for a sereies of articles published on Vuurwapen Blog regarding the Fireclean firearm lubricant.

In response, Andrew Touhy’s legal team has made a very compelling case that the current venue in Virginia is not where the trial should be held and have asked to have it dismissed. That question will most likely be settled by the court later this month.

Regardless, as Fennell implicated Tuohy in a Facebook post, the judge’s ruling in the Fennell case assuredly means that Tuohy will be included in the discovery phase of the Fennell case which should commence shortly. Consequently, efforts to stave off discovery in Tuohy’s suit look to be stymied.

Fireclean Releases Statement Regarding Lawsuit Against Tuohy And Baker

Wednesday, April 6th, 2016

FireClean LLC has recently filed a lawsuit against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker, asserting defamation and Virginia Business Conspiracy Act claims against these defendants, who with the specific purpose of harming FireClean, initiated a protracted and intentional smear campaign against the company.

FIREClean’s patent application was publicly accessible online two years before Tuohy wrote about FIREClean®. The patent application, on the very first page, describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation. Tuohy never undertook to test this statement. He chose a test that would give him the result he wanted so that he could publish sensational headlines. An infrared spectroscopy analysis was not sufficient to distinguish FIREClean® from Crisco vegetable or canola oil, and Tuohy knew this. Moreover, even after publishing his articles, Tuohy was alerted to this fact by other readers of his blog, and he never undertook to correct his analysis or conclusions.

When Tuohy told us that he intended to publish his first article- the night before he published it- and told us what his conclusions would be, we asked him for a chance to read it first, so we could provide a proper response. He refused. In his blog post he stated, “That is not how this blog works.”

Clearly, Tuohy wanted to turn a blind eye to anything that might tamper down his eye-grabbing headlines. He wanted readership, not the truth.

Some recent public social media comments have compared our suit against Tuohy to a David-versus-Goliath First Amendment case. It is anything but that. In fact, Tuohy has as many aircraft registered in his name as FireClean has employees (two). FireClean is a small business that has been subject to an unprovoked and unfair attack.

FIREClean® is not Crisco Vegetable nor Canola oil – nor otherwise common vegetable oil. FIREClean® is a proprietary, high-efficiency formulation that yielded unprecedented results in Tuohy’s own live-fire use. Tuohy’s separate statements that are the subject of our lawsuit were false, continuous, persistent, and maliciously made. FireClean has no choice but self defense. Anyone who thinks the company is wrong for doing so has clearly never had their livelihood attacked by someone engaged in a protracted smear campaign.

The Citizens of the United States of America certainly enjoy the freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment. But just as it is illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire, there are limits on—and repercussions to—speech that is intentionally or negligently false, that causes harm to another. These are the rights that we seek to vindicate.

We encourage you to read the suit in its entirety here: