• Report: #1051816

Complaint Review: Clementsville Oil & Gas

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Fri, May 17, 2013
  • Updated: Fri, May 17, 2013

  • Reported By: Lisa — Florida
Clementsville Oil & Gas
Internet, Kentucky USA

Clementsville Oil & Gas Scam "Investment" Real company by this name has been out of business since 1989 Internet Kentucky

*Author of original report: Now operating as WE SELL OIL AND GAS LEASES PHONE 1-310-569-5241 WEST COAST "SALES MANAGER" PHONE 1-502-272-4800 Three Star Corporate Office Louisville Kentucky Liberty Oil and Three Star Leasing

*Author of original report: John G. Westine aka John Mueller aka John Scott, more information

*Author of original report: John G.Westine, aka John Mueller, aka John Scott

*Author of original report: More on Merricks J. Prudhomme

*Author of original report: More criminal activity: Merricks Prudhomme

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

On 5/13/13, This ad was posted on Craigslist:

 n8scw-3803090632@job.craigslist.org

Commissions can really add up here (50-100K+). . ..this is one of those Oil & Gas programs that comes along once in a blue moon 

Make $15/hr + Commissions + Daily Cash Bonuses

We have the Leads, Dialer System & TOP notch closer to back you up

Our office is in Irvine, but our automated Dialer System allows you to work from your home office -- Must have a computer

Work 4/hrs per day, 5 days per week

Have phone experience cold calling investors, oil & gas experience = big plus

REAL PHONE PEOPLE ONLY. . . NO BABYSITTING

(877)750-0091

The company sent me this script:  

Hi (Client Name), this is (Your Name), I’m a compliance officer of Clementsville Oil And Gas Leasing in Kentucky. The last time one of our men spoke with you about an investment, you were not in a position to take advantage of at the time, but you had mentioned that if we had a smaller oil and gas investment with very little risk and that was already producing an income stream, to give you a call.

That’s the reason for my call today!!!

 

What we have here (Client Name), is one of those Oil & Gas Opportunities that truly comes along once in a blue moon

It is NOT a drilling program, we are already in production

And it’s NOT front end loaded. You see (Client Name), we can drill a well for $35-40,000, which most people promote for $250-300,000. We do NOT promote our wells, plus we pay 60% royalties to investors

This is NOT a private placement or a limited partnership, you go on the lease title, which is notarized, filed with the state & which you are given a copy of. So the clients are actual owners in the wells.

And you can get in for anywhere from $2,500 to $85,000, wherever’s comfortable for you. So this allows you to do a small initial buy-in, to test the waters & see how we perform.

We start paying out Royalty checks in 90-120 days. If you get in right now, you’ll have your first Royalty check in August

By the way (name), this is not a solicitation, this is an invitation to participate in an Oil & Gas income producing opportunity

So if you interested in producing monthly income, from a solid oil & gas lease program,

I’d like to put our information in front of you

What is your email address (Name) & we WILL NOT share it with anyone (shut up)

Any customer questions…I’ll have a senior representative call you back to have ALL your questions answered. What is the best time to reach you (Name)?

Thank you for your time (Name), Good bye

 

They told me on the phone wells were currently producing in Kentucky.

According to the Kentucky Secretary of State's website the company has been out of business since 1989:

CLEMENTSVILLE OIL AND GAS, INC.


General Information

  Organization Number 0212921
  Name CLEMENTSVILLE OIL AND GAS, INC.
  Profit or Non-Profit P - Profit
  Company Type KCO - Kentucky Corporation
  Status I - Inactive
  Standing B - Bad
  State KY
  File Date 3/17/1986
  Organization Date 3/17/1986
  Last Annual Report 5/17/1988
  Principal Office RT. 8, CLEMENTSVILLE RD.
LIBERTY, KY 42539
  Registered Agent HOWARD MOON
RT. 8, CLEMENTSVILLE RD.
LIBERTY, KY 42539
  Authorized Shares 1000

Current Officers

Individuals / Entities listed at time of formation

  Director HOWARD MOON
  Director EARL PYLE
  Incorporator HOWARD MOON
  Incorporator EARL PYLE

Images available online

Documents filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 15, 2004 or thereafter are available as scanned images or PDF documents. Documents filed prior to September 15, 2004 will become available as the images are created.
  Administrative Dissolution Return 11/10/1989 2 pages tiff PDF
  Administrative Dissolution 11/10/1989 1 page tiff PDF
  Sixty Day Notice Return 9/1/1989 2 pages tiff PDF
 

Some CROOKS  are using the name of a defunct company to rob people.  The names they are using are John Mueller/John Scott and Merrick Prudhomme.

DO NOT SEND THEM YOUR MONEY. IT IS A TOTAL SCAM. 


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/17/2013 05:55 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Clementsville-Oil-Gas/Internet-Kentucky/Clementsville-Oil-Gas-Scam-Investment-Real-company-by-this-name-has-been-out-of-busi-1051816. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Clementsville Oil & Gas

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
5Author 0Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

Clementsville Oil & Gas no longer operational as a result of report posted here. Now operating as Liberty Oil & Gas, Three Star Leasing, Poston Accounting. NONE of the foregoing are avtice corportaions according to the Kentacky Secretary of State's website. 

New Scam company advertising on Craigslist and soliciting investments: 

http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/sls/3932970927.html

WE SELL OIL AND GAS LEASES 


PHONE 1-310-569-5241 WEST COAST "SALES MANAGER"
PHONE 1-502-272-4800 Three Star Corporate Office Louisville Kentucky

EACH CLOSER WILL WRITE A COUPLE OF DEALS THEIR FIRST WEEK >>>> EVERYONE IS!!!

THESE LEASES ARE PRODUCING OIL WITH A MONTHLY INCOME!!!

ALL PAPERWORK VERIFIED BY THE STATE OIL AND GAS COMMISSIONER.

A CLOSER IS KING !!! NO BABY SITTING
HOWEVER; "NO FREE RIDES" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Location: KENTUCKY TENNESSEE
  • Compensation: HIGH POINTS ARE YOURS

 

Howard A. Moon (deceased) & John Scott listed on "contract" posted. Same as on Clementsville Oil & Gas "contract"  http://clementsvilleoil.net/files/CLEMENTSVILLE-CONTRACT-AGREEMENT.pdf

 

Body of above: 

 

LIBERTY OIL & GAS CONTRACT AGREEMENT
I hereby agree to purchase interest in approximately 50 oil and or gas wells. I further understand that the net royalty interest lease assignments will be transferred and filed with the State of Kentucky on my behalf. I will receive a filed stamped copy of the lease assignments for my records. I understand the lease price is a turnkey price, and there will be no further cost to me for any of the operational cost performed on said leases during the operation of said leases. I may cancel this agreement with a complete refund of my purchase amount within 30
days. This will give me more than enough time to review all the well logs and production reports, sent to me via
email from Liberty Oil and Gas, to enable me to verify the downside or upside potential of these leases and its wells. PAYMENT FOR NET ROYALTY INTEREST LEASE ASSIGNMENT
I hereby agree to purchase ________% of 1% (60% Royalty) interest in approximately 50 oil and or gas leases with a check for $________________made payable to “THREE STAR LEASING”. In the memo line please write ________%
of 1% Net Royalty Interest in the Kentucky Oil and Gas leases that will contain approximately 50 plus or minus oil and gas wells. I understand and agree that Liberty Oil & Gas reserves the right at its sole discretion to place me into another lease of equal or greater value, if production falls below their expectations. REPRESENTATON AND WARRANTIES OF THE WORKING INTEREST
I also understand that the working interest is purchased in reliance upon a certain exemption registration provision
of the Securities Act of 1933, as a non-public offering exemption of the Securities Act of the states in which the working interest may be purchased. As a condition to purchasing working interest/NRI in said oil and gas leases as thereby exempt and qualifies to the extend applicable, and knowing that I have relied upon the research done by me herein for the exemptions for this lease purchase. This Agreement is executed on this _____ Day of ___________, 2013 Signed by _______________________________________ Print Name______________________________________ Address__________________________________________________________________________________________ Mail to: FedEx to: Liberty Oil & Gas Liberty Oil & Gas Howard A. Moon or John Scott Howard A. Moon or John Scott c/o Poston Accounting LLC c/o Poston Accounting LLC
P.O. Box 1467 330 1/2 East Main Street Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102-1467 Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102-1467 Lease Purchase Options 1% NRI* 50 wells (60% Royalty) $85,000.00 ¾% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$72,500.00 ½% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$52,000.00 ¼% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$28,500.00
1/8% of 1% NRI 50 wells ……….$16,500.00
1/16% of 1% NRI 50 wells………$ 8,900.00
1/32% of 1% NRI 50 wells ……...$ 4,700.00
1/64% of 1% NRI 50 wells ……...$ 2,500.00

 

More info here: 

http://shopoil.com/images/Additional_Information_click_here_m.pdf

 

Liberty Oil & Three Star Leasing
Liberty Oil and Three Star Leasing is currently offering you the opportunity to own a royalty interest position in about 22 Kentucky oil and gas leases spread across 2700 acres in Butler County, Muhlenberg County, and Todd County, Kentucky. STRIPPER WELLS = ROYALTY CHECKS
Stripper wells account for approximately 15% of the oil and 7% of the gas produced in the U.S. Stripper wells are oil wells that produce 10 barrels per day (b/d) or less and gas wells that produce 60 thousand cubic feet (mcfd) per day or less. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7947 60% Royalty Net Revenue Interest Leases are available
-The operator, LIBERTY OIL, has over 30 years of experience rehabilitating stripper wells and gas producing wells in Kentucky, Tennessee etc.
-For sale is a lease position on a collective group of wells consisting of two blocks of wells (one is a 50 to 75 block of oil and or gas wells and another 75 block of wells available next).
-The owner is looking to sell a 49% net revenue interest in the 50-75 block well properties for $5,100,000 (60 units at $85,000). State and Federal bonds and/or letters-of-credit are in place for each well, as required by law
10 to 20 BPD average production over the last five years 1987 Engineering Evaluation and Economic Appraisal of oil interests available 2008 Prospectus/Reserve Study available
-There should be over 200 total wells available for pooling and unitization. There has been an industry group that has done all due diligence on the 200 oil and gas lease block and the engineering studies are such that they have taken a 1/32nd over- riding royalty in this project. ACTUAL "Oil Production" on the approximately 200 existing wells consist of: Approximately 65 wells currently producing Approximately 90 wells equipped with 20 injections Approximately 25 wells that require tubing reworking to bring back on-line Approximately 90 wells not equipped or producing
7 Barren County wells currently producing recently added to this 50-75 block (see 4-9-13 update below) Estimated remaining oil reserves are approximately 1 million barrelsINCOME PROJECTION & ESTIMATED RETURNS
LEASE PURCHASE OPTIONS: 1% NRI* 50 wells (60% Royalty) $85,000.00 ¾% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$72,500.00 ½% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$52,000.00 ¼% of 1% NRI 50 wells…………$28,500.00
1/8% of 1% NRI 50 wells ……….$16,500.00
1/16% of 1% NRI 50 wells………$ 8,900.00
1/32% of 1% NRI 50 wells ……...$ 4,700.00
*net revenue interest OIL
1/32nd% of 1% Interest…Per Well @ 10 barrels per day
10bblpd x $98.59* = $985.00 x 30 days =$29,577.00 x 60% Royalty= $17,746.00 x 1% = $177.46 x 1/32nd =
$5.55 WTI Crude Oil $98.59 ▲0.15 0.15%
2013.06.18 end-of-day
Crude Oil and Commodity Prices
June 19, 2013 - 17:44:20
http://www.oil-price.net/ GAS
*6-5-13 $4.58 Oil Total Oil…$5.55 per well x 50 wells = $277.50 per month on a 1/32 positionNumber of months ROI Projections*
$4,700.00 divided by $277.50 = 17 months (R.O.I. = $3,330 first year payout), RR = 70% per yr or 5.9% mo
$8,900.00 divided by $555.00 = 16 months (R.O.I. = $6,660 first year payout), RR = 75% per yr or 6.2% mo
$16,500.00 divided by $1,110.00 = 15 mos (R.O.I. = $13,320 first year payout), RR = 80% per yr or 6.7% mo
$28,500.00 divided by $2,220.00 = 13 mos (R.O.I. = $26,640 first year payout), RR = 93% per yr or 7.7% mo
$52,000.00 divided by $4,440.00 = 12 mos (R.O.I. = $53,280 first year payout), RR = 102% per yr or 8.5% mo
$72,500.00 divided by $6,660.00 = 10.8 mos (R.O.I. = $79,920 first year payout), RR = 110% per yr or 91% mo
$85,000.00 divided by $8,873.00 = 9.57 months (R.O.I = $106,476 first year payout), RR =125% per yr/10.4% mo
*These projections are based on all 50 wells up & running. We intend to have all 50 wells producing by the end of the year and royalty payments will increase accordingly. As of 5-22-13, there are 7 wells producing 3+ bblpd each and 5 additional wells that will be online by 7-1-13, which based off prior/recent production, are expected to produce 10-20 bblpd each. Gas Production Potential – New Albany Shale of Illinois Basin:
- These oil and gas leases form part of the Illinois Basin (southwestern area) and sit above New Albany Shale. - Estimated gas reserves of approximately 0.7 – 1.2 (BCF)
- The New Albany Shale has not been penetrated for gas production on these leases. Note: We believe the 50 to 75 block of wells will produce an average 5-12 bopd and average 250 mcfd of natural gas on co-producing wells and assume $98.59.00 per barrel of oil and a 60% lease Royalty. PAYOUT TO ROYALTY OWNER
 This would amount to a gross payout in 8 to 15.5 months. Industry leaders who drill new wells look for a payout in under 2 years. These leases are very attractive because the oil and gas wells are known producers, with only a minute portion of the reserves having been extracted.  There are another 125 wells that this owner will own and operate, that were doing more than 120 barrels a month when they were drilled and completed. Today these wells should produce at 150 to 400 barrels per month out of 50 plus wells. We believe that the potential for the wells in these
royalty interest leases will be greater than expected. These oil and gas leases are available to buyers who want a good royalty income and are adverse to accepting the risks of new wells or redeveloped wells. These leases collectively have approximately 200 existing gas and or oil wells. http://moneyinoil.com
 The owner has developed a plan to permit the leases for total re-works similar to what has been accomplished in their other leases. The owner has assessed the properties and anticipates having over 50 wells online and production with the one-year period. The 50-75 well block leases are ready
for the prescribed re-works.  The wells originally flowed 6 to 13 barrels of oil per day. The injection process is designed to increase the down hole well bore pressure to approximate the pressure that existed when the wells were first drilled, and by raising the pressure, the owner anticipates production of 3 to 8 barrels of oil per well per day. Unlike the other wells, the oil from these properties is classified Intermediate and should command a higher price.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

John G. Westine aka John Mueller aka John Scott, more information

AUTHOR: Lisa - ()

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/awaiting-sentencing/recent/3

 
LOCAL
June 15, 1992
An inmate awaiting sentencing for bilking investors of $3.4 million in an oil scheme used a prison telephone to swindle more people, federal authorities say. John G. Westine Jr., 45, conducted a fraudulent operation called the Land Bank out of the Burlington, Ky., jail while awaiting sentencing in the oil scheme, the government said in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court. According to court documents, Westine sold bogus shares in a Canadian golf course and even used an alias to solicit fresh investments from some of the people he had bilked before.

John G. Westine v. United States Parole Commission

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS


April 8, 2011

JOHN G. WESTINE, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard D. Rogers United States Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a prisoner in federal custody and incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas.

Background

In July 1990, petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to one year in prison for failing to file a tax return and five years for income tax evasion.*fn1 The court ordered him to serve the first 90 days of the five-year sentence. The balance of the sentence was suspended, and petitioner was placed on probation for five years. The petitioner was ordered to serve 60 days of the one-year sentence, to be served on weekends following his release from the 90-day period in confinement. Id.

However, petitioner failed to report for service of his sentence and was a fugitive until he was arrested in Canada. See United States v. Westine, 5 F.3d 544, 1993 WL 337540, *1 (9th Cir. 1993). Thereafter, petitioner was returned to the United States and served the terms imposed in 1990. See Westine v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 2006 WL 3075844, *1 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2006).*fn2

In April 1991, petitioner was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to a prison term of 21 months with a 3-year period of supervised release for failure to surrender for service of his sentences.*fn3

While serving these sentences, petitioner was convicted of fraud charges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment.*fn4

In September 1993, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California revoked petitioner's probation term and sentenced him to a term of six years, to be served consecutively to his 235-month sentence.*fn5

Petitioner will be eligible for parole following the service of one-third of the terms for which he was sentenced.

18 U.S.C. § 4205(a). The Bureau of Prisons has calculated petitioner's eligibility date as July 29, 2011.*fn6

Petitioner's initial parole hearing was scheduled for March 2011.*fn7

Discussion

Petitioner claims he is illegally incarcerated, and he contends (1) the United States Parole Commission (USPC) may consider only his "old law" offenses in considering his release on parole and that his criminal history that is more than 10 years old cannot be considered by the USPC; (2) his six-year probation violation sentence is illegal because he completed the underlying terms; and (3) the USPC improperly delayed his initial hearing, because he was entitled to such a review after completing the Bureau of Prisons' Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).

Claims properly before the USPC

Respondent claims petitioner's assertion that the USPC may consider only his "old law" offenses, that is, those committed in 1984 and 1985, prior to the passage of the federal sentencing guidelines, is premature and should not be considered by the court.

In support, respondent states that petitioner should address this point at his parole hearing rather than requesting a decision from the court at this time. Respondent states that following petitioner's parole hearing, the USPC will have 21 days to issue a notice of action containing its decision. 18 U.S.C. § 4206(b). Petitioner may choose to appeal that decision to the USPC's National Appeals Board, and the decision by that body will complete the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

18 U.S.C. § 4215 and 28 C.F.R. § 2.26.

The court agrees that there is no basis to consider petitioner's claim for habeas corpus prior to the completion of the administrative hearing and, if necessary, administrative appeals. Generally, a petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief should first exhaust administrative remedies, even when no statute mandates such exhaustion. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992). The benefits of requiring such non-jurisdictional exhaustion include allowing the parties and courts the full measure of agency expertise and the development of a record that facilitates judicial review. See Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C.Cir. 2004).

Thus, federal prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before commencing a petition pursuant to §2241. Williams v. O'Brien, 792 F.2d 986, 987 (10th Cir.1986); see also Owens-El v. Pugh, 16 Fed. Appx. 881, 883 (10th Cir. 2001)(because exhibits showed petitioner had exhausted administrative remedies before USPC, court could consider his petition under § 2241).

The exhaustion of administrative remedies may be excused when "the interests of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum" outweigh the interests of the agency in protecting its own authority. McCarty, id. at 146.

Here, however, petitioner essentially requests an advisory ruling from the court concerning what information the USPC may consider. The court agrees the claim is not ripe for review and will dismiss it without prejudice.

Petitioner's probation sentence

Petitioner contends his probation violation sentence, imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is illegal. He argues he was never on probation.

 

Respondent argues this claim is a challenge to the validity of petitioner's sentence, and, as such, should be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The distinction between the remedies provided under § 2241 and § 2255 is well-established. "A petition under ... § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined." Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). "A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence." Id. (citations omitted).

"A federal prisoner may file a §2241 application to challenge the legality of his conviction under the limited circumstances provided in the so-called savings clause of §2255. Pursuant to this savings clause, a § 2241 [application] may be appropriate if the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [an applicant's] detention." Brace v. United States, ------ F.3d --------, 2011 WL 915178 *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166). A finding that § 2255 is an inadequate remedy, however, is likely to be a rare occurrence. See Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999)(remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective only in "extremely limited circumstances.").

Respondent also points to four prior, unsuccessful attempts by the petitioner to pursue this claim under § 2241, and a June 2010 decision in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejecting petitioner's motion under §2255 and describing him as a "vexatious litigant"*fn8 .

Having considered the record, the court agrees petitioner's claim is not properly before this court. The claim that his sentence is illegal is properly presented in a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court, and the petitioner has used that remedy, albeit without success. The fact that petitioner did not obtain relief in that motion does not establish that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Williams v. U.S., 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963). Finally, it is apparent that petitioner has sought relief on this claim under § 2241 on prior occasions. The present attempt is repetitious and abusive.

Delay in conducting parole hearing

Petitioner claims he was entitled to a parole hearing upon his completion of RDAP and that the USPC improperly delayed his initial parole hearing.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(a), petitioner is eligible for parole upon the completion of one-third of his sentence. His eligibility date, as computed by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is July 29, 2011.*fn9 The initial parole hearing for a federal prisoner eligible for parole under that provision ordinarily "shall be held not later than thirty days before the date of such eligibility for parole." 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a).

The USPC's regulation concerning the initial parole hearing provides:

An initial hearing shall be conducted within 120 days of a prisoner's arrival at a federal institution or as soon thereafter as practicable; except that in a case of a prisoner with a minimum term of parole eligibility of ten years or more, the initial hearing will be conducted nine months prior to the completion of such a minimum term, or as soon thereafter as practicable. 28 C.F.R. § 2.12(a).

 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

John G.Westine, aka John Mueller, aka John Scott

AUTHOR: Lisa - ()

WHOIS search results for:CLEMENTSVILLEOIL.COM(Registered)
Is this your
domain?
 
Add hosting, email and more.
Want to buy
this domain?
 
Get it with our Domain Buy service.
 
Registrant:
John G Westine
6418 Cavalleri Road
Malibu, CA 90265
US

Domain name: CLEMENTSVILLEOIL.COM

Administrative Contact:
G Westine, John CLEMENTSVILLEOILGAS@GMAIL.COM
6418 Cavalleri Road
Malibu, CA 90265
US
+1.3109244904
Technical Contact:
G Westine, John CLEMENTSVILLEOILGAS@GMAIL.COM
6418 Cavalleri Road
Malibu, CA 90265
US
+1.3109244904

Registration Service Provider:
Yola, Inc, support@yola.com
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 27-Feb-2013.
Record expires on 27-Feb-2014.
Record created on 27-Feb-2013.

 Registrant of the website, released from Federal Prison in 2011:

 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=john+&Middle=&LastName=westine&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=77&y=17

 SAME KIND OF SCAM:

 On February 18, 1992, John G. Westine, Jr., was convicted in the Southern District of Ohio of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and interstate transportation of goods acquired by fraud. Mr. Westine, through a telemarketing scheme that sold shares of nonexistent oil and gas interests, defrauded numerous individuals out of approximately $3.2 million. He purchased several assets with the proceeds of his illegal activities, including a parcel of real estate in Malibu, California. These assets were seized in the criminal case, under criminal forfeiture provisions, and subsequently were forfeited. Approximately 90 victims of the fraud filed petitions in the ancillary forfeiture proceeding. The final order of forfeiture ordered a sale of the forfeited assets and pro rata distribution to the 90 claimants. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

More on Merricks J. Prudhomme

AUTHOR: Lisa - ()

 STATE OF MAINE

OFFICE OF SECURITIES

121 STATE HOUSE STATION

AUGUSTA, ME  04333

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY        

06-054

ALLEGATIONS

1.                  Woso Energy Corporation (“Woso”) was incorporated in California in 2004 and has a principal place of business at 4336 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90008.  Woso has also used 1505 17th Street, Suite 214, Santa Ana, California 92705, as an alternative business address.

2.                  Osinmen E. Sunday is an individual who has been at all relevant times the chief executive officer and chairman of Woso and whose last known business address is 4336 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90008.  He is also known as Osin E. Sunday, Sunday E. Osin, Sunny Olson, Olson Sunny, Monday O. Sunday, and Monday O. Ehighalua. 

3.                  Oziengbe E. Williams is an individual who was at all relevant times an officer and director of Woso and whose last address is 22307 Black Gum Street, Moreno Valley, California 9253.  He is also known as William E. Oziengbe, Ozzie E. Williams, and E.O. Williams.

4.                  Merricks J. Prudhomme, Sr., is an individual who acted at all relevant times as a sales representative of Woso and whose last known address is 3337 Bristol South, # 72, Santa Ana, California 92704.

5.                  In or about April 2005, a resident of Southwest Harbor, Maine (“the Maine resident”) received telephone calls from Prudhomme, who indicated that he represented Woso and solicited the Maine resident to purchase an investment in an oil and gas drilling project.  Prudhomme represented to Smith that the well at issue was already being drilled and producing oil.  He also represented that Smith had to send money to Woso as soon as possible in order to qualify for “first month production revenues,” and that those revenues would be distributed by May 10, 2005. 

6.                  As a result of these telephone solicitations, on or about April 29, 2005, the Maine resident invested $30,000 in the drilling project, referred to as “South Red Oak Prospect,” by sending a check to Woso in that amount.  The investment was memorialized by a Subscription and Customer Agreement signed by “Ozzie E. Williams.”

7.                  This investment was not registered as a security in Maine and Prudhomme was not licensed to offer and sell securities in Maine.

8.                  The Maine resident has received no written information from Woso concerning the status of the project or his investment.  In summer 2005 he made several calls to Woso in order to obtain such information and, on one occasion, spoke to Sunday, who admitted that in fact the well had not been drilled at all.  In fall and winter 2005, the Maine resident made several more telephone calls to Sunday and spoke to him on one occasion, in October.  In that telephone call Sunday stated that he was attempting to resolve a dispute with the well driller and would eventually refund money to investors. 

9.                  The Maine resident has not received any funds back from Woso in connection with the investment.

10.              The respondents did not disclose to the Maine resident that Prudhomme was not licensed to offer or sell securities in Maine.

11.              On or about February 17, 2006, the Office of Securities (“the Office”) sent certified letters to Woso, Sunday, Williams, and Prudhomme.  These letters were received by Woso, Sunday, and Williams on February 21.  In the letters, the Office requested that the recipients immediately send the Office a signed statement agreeing to refrain from further solicitations and sales in Maine.  The letter to Woso and Sunday also requested that they provide, within seven days, a written statement listing the identity of all Maine persons whom Woso had solicited or who had purchased investments.  The Office received no response to the letters.

12.              The investment that Woso offered and sold to the Maine resident is a “security” under section 10501(18) of the Revised Maine Securities Act, 32 M.R.S.A. §§ 10101-10713 (“the Act”).

13.              With respect to the security offered and sold to the Maine resident, Woso is an “issuer” under section 10501(9) of the Act.

14.              With respect to the offer and sale of the security to the Maine resident, Prudhomme acted as a “sales representative” in Maine under section 10501(16) of the Act.

15.              Pursuant to section 10401 of the Act, a person may not offer and sell any security in Maine unless the security is registered under the Act.

16.              Respondents violated section 10401 of the Act because the security that they offered and sold to the Maine resident was not registered under the Act.

17.              Pursuant to section 10301(1) of the Act, a person may not transact business in Maine as a sales representative unless licensed under the Act.

18.              Prudhomme violated section 10301(1) of the Act because he was not licensed as a sales representative in Maine when he offered and sold the security to the Maine resident.

19.              Pursuant to section 10301(2) of the Act, it is unlawful for any issuer to employ or contract with a person as a sales representative in Maine unless the sales representative is licensed under the Act.

20.              Woso violated section 10301(2) of the Act by employing or contracting with Prudhomme as an unlicensed sales representative in Maine.

21.              Pursuant to section 10201 of the Act, in connection with the offer or sale of any security, a person shall not, directly or indirectly:  (a) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; (b) make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (c) engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

22.              Respondents violated section 10201 of the Act by making false representations to the Maine resident that, among other things, the well at issue was already being drilled and producing oil, and the Maine resident was required to invest quickly.

23.              Respondents also violated section 10201 of the Act by failing to disclose, among other things, that Prudhomme was not licensed to offer and sell securities in Maine.

24.              Pursuant to section 10601(3) of the Act, “[i]t is unlawful to fail to provide promptly any written statement if requested” by the administrator.

25.              By failing to provide the written statements requested by the administrator, Woso, Sunday, and Williams violated section 10601(3) of the Act.

26.              As officers or directors of Woso, Sunday and Williams are “control persons” of Woso pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10602(3).  They are thus liable for the securities law violations of Woso.

27.              Pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act, the administrator may issue a cease and desist order if he reasonably believes that any person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act.

28.              Pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act, the administrator may issue an order imposing a civil penalty that may not exceed $1,500 for a single violation if he reasonably believes that any person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act.

29.              In this matter, each respondent is liable for at least one violation each of sections 10401, 10301, and 10201 of the Act, and each respondent except Prudhomme is liable for one violation of section 10601(3) of the Act.

30.              Effective December 31, 2005, the Maine Uniform Securities Act, Title 32, Chapter 135, superseded the Act and governs conduct occurring after December 31, 2005.

NOTICE

Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10708(6), notice is hereby given that the Securities Administrator intends to issue an Order to Cease and Desist and Impose a Civil Penalty against Woso, Sunday, Williams, and Prudhomme pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10708(2), interested parties have thirty (30) calendar days from the entry of this Notice of Intent to file a written request for a hearing.

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Michael J. Colleran

                                                                                    Michael J. Colleran

                                                                                    Securities Administrator

Reviewed by:

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Bonnie E. Russell

                                                                                    Bonnie E. Russell

                                                                                    Assistant Securities Administrator

Presented by:

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Michael W. Atleson

                                                                                    Michael W. Atleson

                                                                                    Staff Attorney

And more:

http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2010/WOSOEnergy_dr.pdf

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report

More criminal activity: Merricks Prudhomme

AUTHOR: Lisa - ()


STATE OF MAINE

OFFICE OF SECURITIES

121 STATE HOUSE STATION

AUGUSTA, ME  04333

            NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY        

06-054

ALLEGATIONS

1.                  Woso Energy Corporation (“Woso”) was incorporated in California in 2004 and has a principal place of business at 4336 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90008.  Woso has also used 1505 17th Street, Suite 214, Santa Ana, California 92705, as an alternative business address.

2.                  Osinmen E. Sunday is an individual who has been at all relevant times the chief executive officer and chairman of Woso and whose last known business address is 4336 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90008.  He is also known as Osin E. Sunday, Sunday E. Osin, Sunny Olson, Olson Sunny, Monday O. Sunday, and Monday O. Ehighalua. 

3.                  Oziengbe E. Williams is an individual who was at all relevant times an officer and director of Woso and whose last address is 22307 Black Gum Street, Moreno Valley, California 9253.  He is also known as William E. Oziengbe, Ozzie E. Williams, and E.O. Williams.

4.                  Merricks J. Prudhomme, Sr., is an individual who acted at all relevant times as a sales representative of Woso and whose last known address is 3337 Bristol South, # 72, Santa Ana, California 92704.

5.                  In or about April 2005, a resident of Southwest Harbor, Maine (“the Maine resident”) received telephone calls from Prudhomme, who indicated that he represented Woso and solicited the Maine resident to purchase an investment in an oil and gas drilling project.  Prudhomme represented to Smith that the well at issue was already being drilled and producing oil.  He also represented that Smith had to send money to Woso as soon as possible in order to qualify for “first month production revenues,” and that those revenues would be distributed by May 10, 2005. 

6.                  As a result of these telephone solicitations, on or about April 29, 2005, the Maine resident invested $30,000 in the drilling project, referred to as “South Red Oak Prospect,” by sending a check to Woso in that amount.  The investment was memorialized by a Subscription and Customer Agreement signed by “Ozzie E. Williams.”

7.                  This investment was not registered as a security in Maine and Prudhomme was not licensed to offer and sell securities in Maine.

8.                  The Maine resident has received no written information from Woso concerning the status of the project or his investment.  In summer 2005 he made several calls to Woso in order to obtain such information and, on one occasion, spoke to Sunday, who admitted that in fact the well had not been drilled at all.  In fall and winter 2005, the Maine resident made several more telephone calls to Sunday and spoke to him on one occasion, in October.  In that telephone call Sunday stated that he was attempting to resolve a dispute with the well driller and would eventually refund money to investors. 

9.                  The Maine resident has not received any funds back from Woso in connection with the investment.

10.              The respondents did not disclose to the Maine resident that Prudhomme was not licensed to offer or sell securities in Maine.

11.              On or about February 17, 2006, the Office of Securities (“the Office”) sent certified letters to Woso, Sunday, Williams, and Prudhomme.  These letters were received by Woso, Sunday, and Williams on February 21.  In the letters, the Office requested that the recipients immediately send the Office a signed statement agreeing to refrain from further solicitations and sales in Maine.  The letter to Woso and Sunday also requested that they provide, within seven days, a written statement listing the identity of all Maine persons whom Woso had solicited or who had purchased investments.  The Office received no response to the letters.

12.              The investment that Woso offered and sold to the Maine resident is a “security” under section 10501(18) of the Revised Maine Securities Act, 32 M.R.S.A. §§ 10101-10713 (“the Act”).

13.              With respect to the security offered and sold to the Maine resident, Woso is an “issuer” under section 10501(9) of the Act.

14.              With respect to the offer and sale of the security to the Maine resident, Prudhomme acted as a “sales representative” in Maine under section 10501(16) of the Act.

15.              Pursuant to section 10401 of the Act, a person may not offer and sell any security in Maine unless the security is registered under the Act.

16.              Respondents violated section 10401 of the Act because the security that they offered and sold to the Maine resident was not registered under the Act.

17.              Pursuant to section 10301(1) of the Act, a person may not transact business in Maine as a sales representative unless licensed under the Act.

18.              Prudhomme violated section 10301(1) of the Act because he was not licensed as a sales representative in Maine when he offered and sold the security to the Maine resident.

19.              Pursuant to section 10301(2) of the Act, it is unlawful for any issuer to employ or contract with a person as a sales representative in Maine unless the sales representative is licensed under the Act.

20.              Woso violated section 10301(2) of the Act by employing or contracting with Prudhomme as an unlicensed sales representative in Maine.

21.              Pursuant to section 10201 of the Act, in connection with the offer or sale of any security, a person shall not, directly or indirectly:  (a) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; (b) make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (c) engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

22.              Respondents violated section 10201 of the Act by making false representations to the Maine resident that, among other things, the well at issue was already being drilled and producing oil, and the Maine resident was required to invest quickly.

23.              Respondents also violated section 10201 of the Act by failing to disclose, among other things, that Prudhomme was not licensed to offer and sell securities in Maine.

24.              Pursuant to section 10601(3) of the Act, “[i]t is unlawful to fail to provide promptly any written statement if requested” by the administrator.

25.              By failing to provide the written statements requested by the administrator, Woso, Sunday, and Williams violated section 10601(3) of the Act.

26.              As officers or directors of Woso, Sunday and Williams are “control persons” of Woso pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10602(3).  They are thus liable for the securities law violations of Woso.

27.              Pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act, the administrator may issue a cease and desist order if he reasonably believes that any person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act.

28.              Pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act, the administrator may issue an order imposing a civil penalty that may not exceed $1,500 for a single violation if he reasonably believes that any person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act.

29.              In this matter, each respondent is liable for at least one violation each of sections 10401, 10301, and 10201 of the Act, and each respondent except Prudhomme is liable for one violation of section 10601(3) of the Act.

30.              Effective December 31, 2005, the Maine Uniform Securities Act, Title 32, Chapter 135, superseded the Act and governs conduct occurring after December 31, 2005.

 

NOTICE

Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10708(6), notice is hereby given that the Securities Administrator intends to issue an Order to Cease and Desist and Impose a Civil Penalty against Woso, Sunday, Williams, and Prudhomme pursuant to section 10602(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. § 10708(2), interested parties have thirty (30) calendar days from the entry of this Notice of Intent to file a written request for a hearing.

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Michael J. Colleran

                                                                                    Michael J. Colleran

                                                                                    Securities Administrator

 

Reviewed by:

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Bonnie E. Russell

                                                                                    Bonnie E. Russell

                                                                                    Assistant Securities Administrator

Presented by:

Date:   March 16, 2006                                               s/Michael W. Atleson

                                                                                    Michael W. Atleson

                                                                                    Staff Attorney

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.