• Report: #720552

Complaint Review: Numatex Inc.

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, April 21, 2011
  • Updated: Tue, May 20, 2014

  • Reported By: Jackie J — St. Louis Missouri USA
Numatex Inc.
1540 Swallow Lane Florissant, Missouri United States of America

Numatex Inc. Oil Drilling and Exploration Florissant, Missouri

*Consumer Comment: Was the NUMaTEX Sam Puryer #3 well ever drilled?

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Patent Applicaiton now posted on US Patent Office website

*Consumer Comment: NUMATEX Pattent not listed on Patent office website

*Consumer Comment: Sour grapes

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: A Dutch Proverb

*Consumer Comment: Klein

*Consumer Comment: Where's the Peer Review and/or Independent test report?

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Another surrogate response

*Consumer Comment: Whatever

*General Comment: NORVELL #5 not ranked.

*Consumer Comment: Give it a rest already

*General Comment: HIGHEST INITIAL PRODUCTION, Illinois Basin wells

*Consumer Comment: Posting by Wiley surrogates confirmed

*Consumer Comment: No basis for Criticism

*Consumer Comment: Second Reply to Steve4631 in Flemington, New Jersey

*Consumer Comment: OH MY KLEIN YOU ARE A SAD MAN

*Consumer Comment: Reply

*Consumer Comment: Oh My Goodness!!! My Oh MY!!

*Consumer Comment: My Dealing With Numatex

*General Comment: Comment for "Steve" in Flemington (NJ?)

*Consumer Comment: Surprised at seeing this.

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Checking on NUMATEX wells in Kentucky

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Biggest well in Kentucky in Clinton County

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: ON FURTHER REVIEW - POSSIBLY, NUMATEX breached contract

*Author of original report: Numatex comments by jackie j

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: RESPONSE FROM GEORGE D. KLEIN

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: MR WILEY'S POST DOES MORE DAMAGE TO NUMATEX THAN ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN OR SAID.

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Telling The Real Story About Numatex, Inc

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!

Need to find out if there are others who have made an investment with Thomas Wiley of Numatex, to learn if they too have not received promised returns.  Were you promised a full refund if you requested one?  Do your calls go unanswered or returned?  Is this a reputable company or a fraud?  In the beginning they sent checks as a return on the investment regularly.  They asked for an additional investment a couple of years later to increase 'financial security in the future' and based on past returns this was done.  Now, no checks or responses to  phone calls.  I'm beginning to think this was or is a SCAM and need to know if there are others who have experience with Numatex Inc.  How do I find a list of shareholders?  Any information on this company would be appreciated.   




This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/21/2011 05:30 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Numatex-Inc/Florissant-Missouri-63031/Numatex-Inc-Oil-Drilling-and-Exploration-Florissant-Missouri-720552. 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 Numatex Inc.

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:
1Author 18Consumer 9Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Was the NUMaTEX Sam Puryer #3 well ever drilled?

AUTHOR: Just Curious - ()

In mid June, 2013, a permit to drill the NUMATEX Sam Puryear #3 well was filed with the state of Kentucky. NUMATEX provides predictions of probable success on its website for this well.  

As of today, July 18,2014, the state of Kentucky has not reported any drilling results, and no reports have been issued by NUMATEX.

Was the well ever drilled?  If not, why not?  If so, what are the results and when will they be released as promised on the NUMATEX web site?

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Patent Applicaiton now posted on US Patent Office website

AUTHOR: 007/007 - ()

NUMATEX's Patent applicaiton is now posted on the US. Patent Office website as APplicaiton #20130193964. 

Whether this constitutes an  approval is indeterminate.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

NUMATEX Pattent not listed on Patent office website

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

NUMATEX patent approved??  Are you sure?

A search of the US Patent Office website shows that neither NUMATEX nor Thomas J. WIley, Sr. have their patent approved (yet).  It takes three years to get a US patent approved, although new legislation may speed up the process. No assurance that this is the case during the current 'transition period.".

As for Peer Review, I understand your point.  However, an indepedant test report (such as Underwriter's lab or one of the other 20 plus testing labs out there) or an internal advisory group peer review (such as the big oil companies use) can be protected by a confidentiality agreement and add credibility to a discovery claim.

As for having a patent, it does not guarantee anything.  Known cases of beating patents exist.  Check out the narrative about how the Christmas Light patent got scooped, and in the oil business, you might want to checkout Petty Ray Vs Texaco on seismic time-depth determination.

In the process you might learn how the scientific and engineering system and protocols work. It's a lot different from the sports autograph world.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Sour grapes

AUTHOR: bbro60 - (United States of America)

I'm no surrogate for anyone. And you claiming that is only a way for you to try to get off the hook...If you had a case, an attorney would take the case and collect their fees at the end. But you have no case. Numatex just received their technology patent. That is why there is no peer reviews. They could not expose the technology without the safety of a patent...Finally, you posting your gripes on a place like this shows you have nothing behing your claims. It's all sour grapes and you lost. Goodbye.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Owner of company

A Dutch Proverb

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Bro66,

There is a well known Dutch Proverb that describes your post exactly:

"Vat u zegt, dat ben't u-selv." which translated into the vernacular means "What you say about others is a reflection of yourself."

Name-calling doesn't get you anywhere As for filing law suits, I stated elsewhere if you want to underwrite the costs, please feel free to do so.

And finally, scientific claims lacking peer review and/or an independent  testing lab report lack credibility.  As a stockholder you should ask why there wasn't any disclosed and long-term, will it diminish the value of the stock.

As stated one before,  it is widely known you are merely a surrogate for Mr. Wiley and NUMATEX and lack credibility.  Your continued surrogate posts do not help anyone, including yourself.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

Klein

AUTHOR: bbro60 - (United States of America)

you're a major windbag and quite frankly a puh*sy. Numatex will make their shareholders money, as they already have. But you keep whining like a little sissy girl. See where it gets you. Either use the courts if you have a beef or go sit your arse down. You come off as big time whiner. And you're no further along anywhere now compared to when you first started crying.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

Where's the Peer Review and/or Independent test report?

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)


Eight weeks ago, NUMATEX,Inc and its president, Thomas J Wiley, Sr. posted a shortened video on the Internet of their June 25, 2012 news conference announcing its proprietary technology to find oil and gas.  As of today, neither major business newspapers in Texas, nor major national news outlets, nor oil industry publications have mentioned the technology, much less the
existence of this product.

POSSIBLY the failure to follow international scientific and engineering protocols when announcing such discoveries, may explain the lack of interest. Using an independent testing laboratory would have been an acceptable substitute. Neither peer review nor independent testing was reported in the video. Is that the real reason why the media and the oil industry have ignored the announcement up to now?

The online video generated one viewer comment:

not much to work with xxxx (Name removed). Yet I have an idea for a vid.

Signed by Paster Scott (BUG) CAS BDS.
 
As both NUMATEXs former science advisor and former board member, I emailed Mr. Wiley on August 3, 2012, with this explanation why his news conference failed to generate media and perhaps
other responses. I did not receive a reply, although one was requested by COB (Central Time), August 17, 2012. Ill be happy to forward that email to anyone who requests it and shares with me their interest in reading it. NUMATEX stockholders may contact me also

To get my contact information go to:   http://www.hgs.org/GeorgeKlein

Yours sincerely

GDK
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Another surrogate response

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

BBRO66 - It looks like all you appear to be able to do is to focus on your perception of a personality-oriented interpretation. Is that part of your surrogate role?

Is the NUMATEX technology a break-through?  We don't know.  It hasn't been tested yet to the best of my knowledge in a large oil producing area and only proven in an overmature oil province. In time it may prove itself and for the sake of the remaining stockholders, I hope it might

To prove a breakthrough requires peer review of the science (none offered to the best of my knowledge) and the data must fit reality.  Claiming the technology has found the second largest IP in the Illinois basin at Norvell #5 when in fact it doesn't come close, is an issue of verifiable scientific credibility. Such a claim has major implications beyond what you perceive as a personal issue. 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

Whatever

AUTHOR: bbro60 - (United States of America)

Your disputes here have veered so off course that you are now trying to discredit Mr. Wiley any way you can find... The technology is unique and a breakthrough.   I'm not worried about my stocks value. It is certainly worth more than at any time. So don't worry about me. Obviously you have no claim so you air out your personal laundry on minor sites like this. Knock yourself out...I think it's clear by now to everyone this is entirely sour grapes.  Case closed....You can flap in the breeze here all alone now.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 General Comment

NORVELL #5 not ranked.

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

With all do respect, sir, the reason for posting the information about the Illinois part of the Illinois basin is to post FACTS about Initial Production of individual high-producing wells in the ENTIRE Illinois basin. Mr. Wiley seems to have over-stated his claims about the Norvell #5 well in the entire Illinois basin (and Kentucky; see earlier posts).  In fact, the IP's of the three highest producing well  in the Illinois basin are anywhere from four to five times more than what Mr. Wiley reported from the Norvell #5.  In short, the Norvell #5 doesn't even 'place' in the top rankings of wells in the Illinois basin.

Facts are facts.  Learn to deal with them. Moreover, as a stockholder, wouldn't you want to know the exact facts about oil production from the Norvell #5 in relation to others in the Illinois basin and the state of Kentucky?  It COULD be a factor in the value of your stock.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

Give it a rest already

AUTHOR: bbro60 - (United States of America)

klein said: "Although I have no particular desire to prolong this discussion,"..looks like you do.

So instead of Norvell being #2 IDP, it's 4th.? is that your gripe now? Are we in high school or something? sheesh. Talk about de-evolution of an argument.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 General Comment

HIGHEST INITIAL PRODUCTION, Illinois Basin wells

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Although I have no particular desire to prolong this discussion, followers of this blog are notified herein that in Mid-July, 2012,  Mr. Thomas J. Wiley, Sr, sent a letter to a third party (with a copy to me) alleging that the Norvell #5 well had the second highest Initial Production Rate (IP) in the ENTIRE Illinois basin. Wiley reported in that letter an IP of 3,000 BPOD (Barrels of oil per day) for the Norvell #5 well.

According to data received from the Illinois Geological Survey, here is a list of the three wells with the highest INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES in the state of Illinois portion of the Illinois basin:

API #120270102000.  W.C. McBride, Inc.  Ed Carson #9.  660NL  330 EL SE  35-2N-1W  Centralia Oil Field. Completed 5/29/1940. Pay Zones:  Louisiana Lime at 2770 depth; Devonian  Limestone at 2856 depth.    TD 2912.  IP:15,060 BOPD.

API #120270263800. Adams Oil and Gas Company Edward Copple #17-D.  660NL 990EL NW SE 35-2N-1W. Centralia Oil Field. Completed 6/8/1940.  Pay Zone: Devonian Lime at 2888 depth.  TD 2898. IP: 12,000 BOPD

API #120270102400.  Gulf Refining Company Willard Felton #5.  663SL 330WL  35-2N-1W. Centralia Oil Field. Completed 6/1/1940.  Pay Zone: Devonian Lime at 2894 depth.  TD 2905. IP: 11,820  BOPD

These numbers speak for themselves and require no further comment from me at this time.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 Consumer Comment

Posting by Wiley surrogates confirmed

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Because one of the posters (lovegrape) on this board has disclosed that Mr. Tom Wiley contacted NUMATEX stockholders to post positive feedback on this blog, I shall aggregate my replies once or perhaps twice a day only.

 
Lovegrape:
Thank you for reading the reviews of my book.  Here is a link to another
one you may want to read:


http://www.sepm.org/CM_Files/SedRec-Book%20Reviews/217-JSR-review-DevriesKlein.pdf.

YOU DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING BY STATING:

but Mr. Wiley has ask his stockholders to post good feedback so that there is something there other than your .. 

Your continued reminder that I reread the NUMATEX prospectus indicates to me that you may not know a critical fact. On March 17, 2010, the NUMATEX Board of Directors (Mr. Thomas J. Wiley, Sr., Mrs. Rose Wiley, and Mr. Jonathan Wiley) cancelled the stock certificates my wife and I owned claiming breach of contract over a suspension of my endorsement
(See also his lengthy post above).  Although not a lawyer, their action appears to be borderline theft (in lay terms).  I reviewed this with three lawyers who indicated my interpretation of borderline theft seems reasonable, and also advised that there might be possible stock fraud involved.

Please recall these actions were taken by a Christian Minister (Mr. Thomas J. Wiley, Sr.).

Your disclosure that you followed Mr. Wileys request that stockholders post good feedback on this board seems to me to be  an admission of serving as a surrogate for NUMATEX and its officers, Therefore your remarks are unworthy of further response.


Bbro60 in Coral Springs: First, no I dont spend every waking hour on the Internet. Im more likely to post on weekends or evenings because the rest of the time I have client work to complete.

As to my motives, Ill summarize it this way.  Mr. Wiley made a public promise.  So far he hasnt fulfilled it but could.  He appears also to have breached a contract when I SUSPENDED an endorsement. Suspension is not the same as a breach of contract (Ive been told this by four attorneys). Possible BORDERLINE theft and borderline stock fraud may also be involved (according
to attorneys).

f Mr. Wiley would pick up the phone and call me to discuss a way to resolve outstanding issues, this can all be put behind us.  He never called, even though I suggested he do so in emails, letters and phone messages.

You are right, this matter is not personal.  I used to think I knew Tom and Rose Wiley, but now I have concluded I didnt know them at all. Therefore, POSSIBLY I was hoodwinked or deceived by Mr. Wiley.

In closing, please read my response to Lovegrape immediately above about surrogates posting at Mr. Wileys request.  Did you post at Mr. Wileys request??

 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Comment

No basis for Criticism

AUTHOR: bbro60 - (United States of America)

Dr. Klein, do you patrol this board every waking hour? In any case, I am a Gateway customer and a longtime Numatex investor and have had many converstations with Rose and Tom and I find them both to be of the utmost in character and integrity.

Dr. Klein obviously has personal issues with Numatex but that does not speak for the breakthrough technology that is Numatex, nor anything about Tom and Rose personally.  I hope Dr. Kleins true motives are hashed out soon and exposed.

I have been receiving quarterly oil dividends for years based on the use of Numatex's technology and finding oil. I believe in the technology and I truly believe that the U.S. and the world will greatly benefit as well, once the technology is proven to the currently unknowing industry. Lastly, one cannot believe every written word or opinion on the internet. Mark Twain said "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts its pants on." That will be proven here in this case.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

Second Reply to Steve4631 in Flemington, New Jersey

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

I agree that companies change their policies, strategic plans and goals all the time.  Moreover, companies that issue stock either pay dividends, or in bad times, declare that they will not pay them during a particular quarter.  That is not the issue here,however.

NUMATEX's president, at two board meetings stated publicly that he would "buy back any stockholder's stock any time." The it was changed to "only the most needy".

Only churches and non-profits would limit stock sales or dividends to the most needy during bad times. NUMATEX is a for-profit corporation last I knew.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Comment

OH MY KLEIN YOU ARE A SAD MAN

AUTHOR: lovesgrapes - (USA)

Mr Klein, you keep going back to blaming Mr. Wiley for everything  and saying that every replay "appears" to be a

surrogate of Mr. Wiley.  I am just a well educated man that purchased Numatex stock the first time in 1998.  When

the royalty program was started I received a quarterly royalty check and copies of every check that Numatex

received from the oil purchased from them.  Also, there was a form that came with it that gave the investor's the

total quarterly barrels of oil, money taken in and the amount to be spilt up between them.  As an investor you would

have gotten those forms both by Internet and postal mail.  Even when the company had to halt the royalty

payments in 2008 because of the fall in oil prices we still received the quarterly updates with what we will get as

soon as the company is able to pay us the funds.  They have been able to pay at least one of those quarters back

with interest. 

Again, you put NO money into the company (show me copies of the check you  wrote and I will show you show you

copies of the checks I have written over the years), if anyone should get any money back it should be people with

actual money in the company.  All you had was an Endorsement which you SUSPENDED, don't you think you owe the

stockholders back all the money you were paid since Numatex can no longer use your name for which you were paid?

I did go to Amazon.com and looked at your book, Rocknocker ... quite interesting what a few people have to say.  I

think before you talk about Tom Wiley, you should look into the mirror.  AGAIN, I say your comments about Numatex

are SOUR GRAPES because you did not the money you wanted and now you are trying to ruin the company and a good man. 

I also want to know if you ever read the Prospectus which will tell you the company does not have to buy back the

stock.  When Tom stood up and said he wanted first right of refusal that did not mean he would buy it all back, you

are a smart man and know that he was just saying the company only wanted the right to buy back the stock first

before anyone went out and sold it to others.

Tom did not change the rules, you just did not understand them so read, read, read and find out what Regulation D is

all about before you post any more mean half truths on the Internet. 

Again, I am not  asurrogate but Mr. Wiley has ask his stockholders to post good feedback so that there is something

there other than your mean campaign. By the way in your post where you direct people to the Kentucky oil/gas data

base  you state that some of the wells are missing,  you need to go to the bottom and click on the number 2 and it will

take you to the rest of the wells!!!  

  

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

Reply

AUTHOR: steve4631 - (USA)

I haven't been at any conferences but I will say its not uncommon for a company to change its business practices. Companies do this all the time. The economic climate could change, their business model changes etc. All companies have it's detractors and apparently there are a few here.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Consumer Comment

Oh My Goodness!!! My Oh MY!!

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

My reaction to 'love grapes' is "Oh My Goodness!!! My Oh MY!!" Judging from the text and commentary, it APPEARS to have been posted by a surrogate of Mr. Tom Wiley. Too much of the text is selective lifting from Mr Wiley's earlier post in condensed form. 'Love Grapes" claims to be a stockholder, suggesting a POSSIBLE surrogate relationship.

As mentioned in my earlier rebuttal, several people who APPEARED to be surrogates of Mr. Wiley called me about his company NUMATEX.  They APPEARED to try to get me to make certain statements with intent unstated (but not hard to figure out).  One, the father-in-law of Mr. Wiley's cousins, tried to get me to use certain legal terms as applicable to NUMATEX, I did not take the bait, but it APPEARED obvious as to intent.

Now to the main point. When I asked, in 2008, for Wiley to buy back my stock (given his public statements willing to do so "any time" at the 2005 and 2006 shareholders meetings), I disclosed BOTH a roof problem after Hurricane Ike (mid-September, 2008) AND upcoming hip replacement revision surgery accompanied by a SIX-MONTH REHAB PERIOD DURING WHICH TIME I COULD NOT WORK. That's both a medical and economic need.  Both Mr. Wiley and Lovegrapes have chosen to omit that medical detail.  (Let me add, I wouldn't want to wish the experience of going through a hurricane, tornado, tsunami, or other natural disaster on anyone, not even Mr. Wiley, nor Lovegrape).

Let me add something else. One of Mr. Wiley's friends posted a video (now taken down) in which I was referenced in less than complimentary terms.  I emailed him suggesting we meet to discuss a way out of these problems.  I never received a reply.  After the video was taken down, I sent another email to explain it was my proposal that the videographer act as a third party mediator.  I never heard back.

In all my correspondence with Mr. Wiley, I always ended letters and emails inviting him to call me back to discuss further.  He never called back.

NOW, why is Mr. Wiley asking surroogates to get involved?  In his June 25 news confernece abridged video linK - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1VBi-r1ke0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wiley openly admitted that no news media were present because according to a media type he telephoned,   the media seldom if ever responds to invitations like his because they (media) make their own news and choices.  So, perhaps the marketing of the news conference was not what was hoped for.  PERHAPS asking surrogates to post here is an attempt to cover for a lack of media response  to NUMATEX's announcement and media event. (Although one newspaper in Indiana did telephone Mr. Wiley's patent attorney about it, according to Mr. Wiley's statement on the video)

If one goes to the June 25 presentation video, two questions stand out:

1). Was the presentation OPENLY CONVEYING details about the discovery or confounding them?

2). Where is the SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW surrounding the discovery?

In closing, as I stated once before, Mr. Wiley's and his surrogates' statements on this board do more damage than anything I have written or said or posted herein.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

My Dealing With Numatex

AUTHOR: lovesgrapes - (USA)

      I am shocked to see all of Mr. Klein's mean spirited and half truths he has put up on this and other places.  Perhaps it is a case of "SOUR GRAPES" because he did not get put at the top of the list when he needed his roof fixed and others needed medical help.  Whatever the case both Tom and Rose Wiley brought both George and his wife to a couple of the stockholder June Days, that my family attended.  Tom had nothing but praise for Mr. Klein and even though in one of his posting Mr. Klein makes a snide remark about the Company paying for food for everyone I did not hear him or his wife complain while they enjoyed breakfast, lunch and dinner on the company.   As far a feeding the whole town of Poole, come on, this was just good business and if there were 200 people over the week at the restaurant,  that included the stockholders and their families.

    I also think you need to read your Prospectus and see that the company does NOT have to buy back the stock and I believe you did not invest any money, yours was an endorsement fee so you never wrote a check out of your personal account like the rest of us did.  So for you to want to be at the front of the line is even when you added in your hip replacement takes a
lot of gall and shows what a little man you are to think should hold all the investor's hostage to get what you want. 

   Perhaps you should read what you write in your first rambling, first he states that one stockholder reminded him that Tom
offered to buy back the stock at the 2005 meeting and now in his latest rambling he is up to 4 people.  Tom has always said that if you want to sell your stock to come to him first and if Numatex can do so it will buy back your stock. 

AGAIN, read the Prospectus since you were a board member you should have been familiar with how the Regulation D program worked and not been so greedy when you saw the oil money coming you just took everything you could get.  I bought my stock back in 1998 when there was NO royalty program, had trust and faith in Tom that he would be able to get the patent done.  He told us that the wells he was drilling were research and devolvement, meaning that is where you make your errors and do your testing.  That is what Tom was doing for the 20 years and the Royalty program was a bonus to all of us that put our money in at the very beginning.

    Perhaps instead of trying to correct Tom on the 1 or 2 years he has you as Professor of Geology, you should check some of your facts on his background.  Again, SOUR GRAPES.  Tom and Rose have done so things for a great many people out of the kindness of their heart and reading your responses I think you are only wanting to do things for George Klein.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 General Comment

Comment for "Steve" in Flemington (NJ?)

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Although it is encouraging to read about "Steve's" experience with Mrs. Tom Wiley, Sr, and Mrs. Rose Wiley, in their sports autograph retail business, and although I understand about investments 'for the long haul," perhaps Steve did not attend the 2005 and 2006 NUMATEX annual stockholder meetings where Mr.Tom Wiley said to the stockholders several times they could sell their stock back to him "any time." This statement was verified to me by at least four stockholders who were either in attendance, or his personal assurance to them when he met them elsewhere.  Because Mr. Wiley is also a licensed Christian minister, many of us took him at his word.

In 2008, the ground rules changed to "only the most needy." Then it turned out there were some who were considered to be more needy than others for no objective reason.

I'll leave it at that.  There is a lot more I could post but won't until required to do so.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Comment

Surprised at seeing this.

AUTHOR: steve4631 - (United States of America)

While trying to find an update on the Numatex Arlington conference, my google search took me here first. I must say that I was rather surprised to read this. I have been ordering Gateway envelopes for years and have spoken to Tom once and Rose several times regarding orders. Other times Rose has contacted me via e-mail. They have always been very forthright in their business dealings with me. I invested in Numatex awhile back and figured it would take some time for the company to get rolling. I too (as much of America has) fell on a bit of hard times, needing money to help my daughter with during a court case. It never occurred to me to go back to a company and ask for my money back.  I thought an investment was just that. An investment. I'm not sure what the motivation behind all this is as I can only speak for myself, but I believe the Numatex finding will help oil companies to become much more efficient in drilling wells, which will save them money and afford them the ability to place that saved money into wells that will produce results thus allowing them to expand and grow the job base, not only here in America but all over the world. Just in time when the U.S. needs it most. I for one am in for the long hall.  Just my 2 cents (25 cents with inflation). 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Checking on NUMATEX wells in Kentucky

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

If you need to look up data on all of NUMATEX's wells in Kentucky, go to the Kentucky Geological Survey website search page:

http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/DataSearching/OilGas/OGSearch.asp

Then select option for searching the entire data base in Kentucky (vs Farm, County, Operator, etc).

In the section below that box select option for "Operator".

Type in NUMATEX and press search button.

INTERESTING RESULTS. 

Some wells appear not to have been recorded but I do NOT know why.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Biggest well in Kentucky in Clinton County

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Mr. Wiley in his post stated one of them came in as the biggest well in the State of Kentucky (the Commonwealth they call it down there).

That MAY not be correct.  I contacted an individual in the Kentucky Geological Survey about this and he wrote:

The highest oil IP in Kentucky I know of is an estimated 400 barrels per hour for a well in Clinton
County (http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/DataSearching/OilGas/OGresults.asp?farmname=&limiter=AND&opername=&wellnum=9372&yearlmt=equal&month1=&day1=&year1=&month2=&day2=&year2=&permit_yearlmt=equal&permit_month1=&permit_day1=&permit_year1=&permit_month2=&permit_day2=&permit_year2=&elog_month1=&elog_day1=&elog_year1=&elog=nolimit&devtype=nolimit&well_depth_val=&well_depth=none&srchType=oil&areatype=all).
It was in an Ordovician fractured reservoir and related to hydrothermal dolomitization. The well produced an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil in 18 months and was abandoned when it began producing gas only.

In Hopkins County, western Kentucky, the first 4 wells in the Hanson pool produced a combined 3,000 barrels of oil per day. There could have been wells in the Birk City pool that exceeded that rate. But I have to look it up.

 The highest natural gas initial open flow developed was 52 million a day from a Bell County, eastern Kentucky, well in the Mississippian Greenbrier/Newman carbonates ("Big Lime").

Historically, there are accounts that may indicate high IPs, like the account of the 1829 Great American Well near Burkesville in Cumberland County. These accounts, however, are not quantitative. The Great American Well was described as a gusher with a fountain of oil higher than the treetops.

 None of the wells in Webster County, KY, are mentioned.

 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#24 REBUTTAL Owner of company

ON FURTHER REVIEW - POSSIBLY, NUMATEX breached contract

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

After an additional day to think about all this, it is possible that likely, Mr. Wiley and NUMATEX breached their contract with me when they responded to my notice of suspension.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Author of original report

Numatex comments by jackie j

AUTHOR: Jackie J - (USA)

I am Jackie J, I started this dialog.  I find it very interesting to read the words shared here.  I do hope all those shareholders George is talking about are reading the updates here just like me and now I have a word to share.  I hope everyone will share. 

I was helping a lady try to understand why she was not getting back what she thought she should be getting back.  In my pursuit for answers I have no more interest for the lady.  I do hope George and the other people who engaged Numatex into their finances, will always have the truth about their investment as well as a refund if you change your mind.  Since that was one of the terms offered during the sale of stock.  The needy and infirm would take precedent over any other requests if the need arose.

Numatex did not honor their word to the senior lady I was helping gather information.  I hope others will step forward with their experiences as a stockholder of Numatex.  Has it been a good or bad experience?  Would you recommend it to your friends/strangers?  If you had $1000 or more to make a stock purchase around the oil industry would you invest in Numatex, Today???

It should make for interesting reading.



Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 REBUTTAL Owner of company

RESPONSE FROM GEORGE D. KLEIN

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Earlier today, I posted a response to a lengthy
statement by Mr. Thomas J. Wiley, Sr concerning NUMATEX. (Report: #720552)

Mr. Wileys statement contains
numerous errors in fact and omissions. Ill summarize a few below and in effort
to keep it short (difficult
to do under the circumstances).



First, although I served as a Professor of
Geology for 21 of the 23.5 years I was on
the faculty there. I never served as chair of the department. Nor is this stated in my resume,
Curricula Vita, or descriptions for
public presentations. Where Mr. Wiley got that information is an unknown.  Whether it is his misperceived embellishment is unknown.



By way of background, Mr. Wiley earned a degree
in Theology for a Michigan college that
is no longer in existence, served as minister
of a church in Florissant, MO.  He
still has a ministers license in Missouri.  Wiley then worked as a security
guard at McDonald-Douglas, before forming
his own business selling autographs of renowned
sports figures. He got into the oil business after a bad investment and learned as much as he could about it. 
He learned a great deal about the operational
side. This history was provided to me by
Mr. Wiley.



Prior to 1997 when I first met him, he made a
discovery that has the potential of
finding oil in the subsurface. He then contacted by email numerous geologists who are members of the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG), including me. Having just started a consulting business, I

called him and eventually I executed a
confidentiality agreement with him and he
demonstrated the prototype of his technology. I admit being underwhelmed,
but because he flew me to St. Louis in good
faith, I felt he was entitled to my best
possible evaluation, so I designed some tests and they provided the POTENTIAL of his discovery warranting further Research
and Development.



Mr. Wiley then proposed an endorsement agreement
and this was executed and I suggested
compensation partly in stock and partly in cash for my wife, me and my consulting corporation. I also served as a member
of the Board of Directors of NUMATEX
until 2007.



Now some specifics:



1). The comment from an unnamed person at the
Illinois Geological Survey might have
come from a disgruntled former student. 



2). My demeanor was well established
comment.  For more details, any interested party can

read my memoirs (G.D. Klein, 2009, ROCKNOCKER:
A geologists Memoir, ccb Publishing.



3). Comment about NUMATEX not being a typical
oil company.   Since
responding to posts by

JackieJ, I have received unsolicited phone
calls and emails from several stockholder,
or people claiming to be stockholders.  Clearly some of these people
likely were surrogates for Mr. Wiley. One
told me he arranged sports autographs for Mr. Wileys company.  Another told me his

daughter was married to one of Mr. Wileys
cousins. So, clearly, Mr. Wiley is publishing
hearsay because he never heard this from me.



Nevertheless, here is a list of concerns:



a). Normally, a small independent oil company
husbands its financial resources and uses
proceeds from production to turn around
and drill at least 10 producing wells. Only after a steady cash flow

accrues will such accompany spend money on its
own equipments, buildings, drilling rigs,
vehicles, etc.



b)  NUMATEX appears not to have done
so.  After drilling five successful wells in a row

in 2005, and perhaps as many as three out of
eight in 2006, NUMATEX bought a

working shallow drill rig, and an abandoned
deeper-capability drill rig which,

after purchase without proper inspection, would
cost $70,000 to repair. The rig

was later bartered to drill another well that
had limited success.   Allegations have been made to me based on
a rumor attributed ultimately to Mrs. Wiley, that NUMATEX bought a farm in

Kentucky as a base for NUMATEXs operation (most
of the land was sold to the

neighboring farmer, cutting costs). 
In addition, during Stockholder meetings in 2005 and 2006, NUMATEX
underwrote the costs for barbecue meals not only for stockholders, but
also for the entire

town of Poole, KY (population 500 people), as
well as entertainment.



c.). NUMATEX production of 75,000 barrels. 
On what is this based? Sales? Because Mr.

Wileys methodology is new, NUMATEXs reserves
in the ground cannot be

estimated because SEC reserve reporting and
evaluation requirements do not

apply to NUMATEXs technology.  I
wrote Mr. Wiley accordingly when these rules were updated.



d). In his post, Mr. Wiley failed to
disclose that using his technology, there were failures including wells
drilled with shows (no commerciality) and dry holes.



e). The business model NUMATEX uses in
its dealings with stockholders became unclear. 

In some ways, it APPEARED similar to a
church, and in some ways it doesnt.



 

4). During the stockholders meetings in 2005
and 2006, Mr. Wiley publicly offered to buy back any and all shares owned
(I can provide the name of one stockholder who reminded me of this if
asked).  He did, in fact, telephone me in July, 2005, and offered to
buy my stocks back.  I possess
telephone records for confirmation.





5). I never used the word "dumb regarding
the NUMATEX prospectus.  Thats a figment of Mr. Wileys imagination.





6). My request in 2008 to buy my stock back was
based on damage to my home during Hurricane Ike.  Not disclosed by
Mr. Wiley was a second reason.  I was about to undergo hip replacement/revision surgery which meant I could not
work for six months. Mr. Wiley ignored that critical piece of information.





7). The statement about requesting to be put at
the top of the list is incorrect.  When Mr. Wiley offered buybacks for the most needy in a
newsletter in September, 2008, I emailed him asking to be put on the
list.  I then discovered that the requests were to be made by
mail.  So, I wrote Wiley, and asked if the request could be dated to
the date I sent the earlier request by

email. 





8). The price of stock I quoted was based on the
last statement by Wiley in a newsletter of the value of the stock. No
correction was issued by Wiley.



 

9). It should be stated for the record that I
placed numerous telephone calls to Mr. Wiley in 2008 and 2009 that were
neither picked up, nor were calls returned when messages were left. I also
sent emails and certified letters and did not receive replies (a common
complaint from stockholders who called me).  Mr. Wiley admitted in
a letter sent early in 2010 that he left my letter unopened for four
months before reading it.



 

10). Endorsement suspension. Yes, I suspended
my endorsement.  There was NOTHING in our

agreement to prevent it, nor did it require a
scientific basis for suspension (an ex post facto requirement of Wileys).
 His response of a branch of contract is his own INTERPRETATION. 



 

11). Those ten prominent clients who dont
like him.  People who do business d because there is a MUTUAL
BENEFIT to the business relationship. There is no requirement to like each

other if both benefit. I have reason to doubt Wiley
 contacted that many of my current and former clients.





In closing, the comments posted by Mr. Wiley are doing more
damage to NUMATEXs standing in the business world than anything I have written or said.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#27 REBUTTAL Individual responds

MR WILEY'S POST DOES MORE DAMAGE TO NUMATEX THAN ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN OR SAID.

AUTHOR: gdkgeo - (United States of America)

Mr. Wileys statement contains numerous errors in fact and omissions. Ill summarize a few below and in effort to keep it short (difficult to do under the circumstances).

First, although I served as a Professor of Geology for 21of the 23.5 years I was on the faculty there. I never served as chair of the department. Nor is this stated in my resume, Curricula Vita, or descriptions for public presentations. Where Mr. Wiley got that information is an unknown.  Whether it is his misperceived embellishment is unknown.

By way of background, Mr. Wiley earned a degree in Theology for a Michigan college that is no longer in existence, served as minister of a church in Florissant, MO. He still has a ministers license in Missouri.  Wiley then worked as a security guard at McDonald-Douglas, before forming his own business selling autographs ofrenowned sports figures. He got into the oil business after a bad investment and learned as much as he could about it.  He learned a great deal about the operational side. This history was provided to me by Mr. Wiley.

Prior to 1997 when I first met him, he made a discovery that has the potential of finding oil in the subsurface. He then contacted by email numerous geologists who are members of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), including me. Having just started a consulting business, I called him and eventually I executed a confidentiality agreement with him and he demonstrated the prototype of his technology. I admit being underwhelmed, but because he flew me to St. Louis in good faith, I felt he was entitled to my best possible evaluation, so I designed some tests and they provided the POTENTIAL of his discovery warranting further Research and Development.

Mr. Wiley then proposed an endorsement agreement and this was executed and I suggested compensation partly in stock and partly in cash for my wife, me and my consulting corporation. I also served as a member of the Board of Directors of NUMATEX until 2007.

Now some specifics:

1). The comment from an unnamed person at the Illinois Geological Survey might have come from a disgruntled former student.

2). My demeanor was well established comment.  For more details, any interested party can read my memoirs (G.D. Klein, 2009, ROCKNOCKER: A geologists Memoir, ccb Publishing.

3). Comment about NUMATEX not being a typical oil company.   Since responding to posts by JackieJ, I have received unsolicited phone calls and emails from several stockholder, or people claiming to be stockholders.  Clearly some of these people likely were surrogates for Mr. Wiley. One told me he arranged sports autographs for Mr. Wileys company.  Another told me his daughter was married to one of Mr. Wileys cousins. So, clearly, Mr. Wiley is publishing hearsay because he never heard this from me.

Nevertheless, here is a list of concerns:

 Normally, a small independent oil company husbands its financial resources and uses proceeds from production to turn around and drill at least 10 producing wells. Only after a steady cash flow accrues will such accompany spend money on its own equipments, buildings, drilling rigs, vehicles, etc.

  NUMATEX appears not to have done so.  After drilling five successful wells in a row in 2005, and perhaps as many as three out of eight in 2006, NUMATEX bought a working shallow drill rig, and an abandoned deeper-capability drill rig which, after purchase without proper inspection, would cost $70,000 to repair. The rig was later bartered to drill another well that had limited success.   Allegations have been made to me based on a rumor attributed ultimately to Mrs. Wiley, that NUMATEX bought a farm in Kentucky as a base for NUMATEXs operation (most of the land was sold to the neighboring farmer, cutting costs).  In addition, during Stockholder meetings in 2005 and 2006, NUMATEX underwrote the costs for barbecue meals not only for stockholders, but also for the entire town of Poole, KY (population 500 people), as well as entertainment.

  NUMATEX production of 75,000 barrels.  On what is this based? Sales? Because Mr. Wileys methodology is new, NUMATEXs reserves in the ground cannot be estimated because SEC reserve reporting and evaluation requirements do not apply to NUMATEXs technology.  I wrote Mr. Wiley accordingly when these rules were updated.

  In his post, Mr. Wiley failed to disclose that using his technology, there were failures including wells drilled with shows (no commerciality) and dry holes.

  The business model NUMATEX uses in its dealings with stockholders became unclear.  In some ways, it APPEARED similar to a church, and in some ways it doesnt.

 
4). During the stockholders meetings in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Wiley publicly offered to buy back any and all shares owned (I can provide the name of one stockholder who reminded me of this if asked).  He did, in fact, telephone me in July, 2005, and offered to buy my stocks back.  I possess telephone records for confirmation.

5). I never used the word "dumb regarding the NUMATEX prospectus.  Thats a figment of Mr. Wileys imagination.

6). My request in 2008 to buy my stock back was based on damage to my home during Hurricane Ike.  Not disclosed by Mr. Wiley was a second reason.  I was about to undergo hip replacement/revision surgery which meant I could not work for six months. Mr. Wiley ignored that critical piece of information.

7). The statement about requesting to be put at the top of the list is incorrect.  When Mr. Wyllie offered buybacks for the most needy in a newsletter in September, 2008, I emailed him asking to be put on the list.  I then discovered that the requests were to be made by mail.  So, I wrote Wiley, and asked if the request could be dated to the date I sent the earlier request by email.

8). The price of stock I quoted was based on the last statement by Wiley in a newsletter of the value of the stock. No correction was issued by Wiley.

9). It should be stated for the record that I placed numerous telephone calls to Mr. WIley in 2008 and 2009 that were neither picked up, nor were calls returned when messages were left. I also sent emails and certified letters and did not receive replies (a common complaint from stockholders who called me).  Mr. Wiley admitted in a letter sent early in 2010 that he left my letter unopened for four months before reading it.
 
10). Endorsement suspension. Yes, I suspended my endorsement.  There was NOTHING in our agreement to prevent it, nor did it require a scientific basis for suspension (an ex post facto requirement of Wileys).  His response of a branch of contract is his own INTERPRETATION.
 
11). Those ten prominent clients who dont like him.  People who do business do so because there is a MUTUAL BENEFIT to the business relationship. There is no requirement to like each other if both benefit. I have reason to doubt WIley  contacted that many of my current and former clients.

In closing, the comments posted by Mr. Wiley are doing more damage to NUMATEXs standing in the business world than anything I have written or said.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#28 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Telling The Real Story About Numatex, Inc

AUTHOR: T Wiley - (United States of America)

This is Thomas J. Wiley, Sr. After more than a year of seeing complaints on this site from George D. Klein and "Jackie J." and now Katrina Hornstein, it is time now for me to respond. It is unfortunate that the Internet can be a public forum for lies and half-truths, for which libel case law is rapidly being established. In the meantime, false accusations and mean-spirited language can do their intended damage, as is possibly now the case, so it is time to go on the record.

George D. Klein is well-known by many in the oil and gas industry and was for 23 years professor of geology at the University of Illinois and chair of the department. From my website "THE MOST IMPORTANT ENERGY DISCOVERY SINCE E=MC, " posted in 1997 looking for help, Dr. Klein contacted me, visited me at my expense in Florissant, MO, went to the field with me, became privy to our developing technology, and for my handsome offer, endorsed our science in view of patenting. He signed a lengthy endorsement agreement, and at no time has he ever questioned the basis of our science.

In 1998, when I was purchasing geological material from the Illinois Geological Survey, I mentioned with some pride that "Dr. George D. Klein is on our board of directors." Without any hesitation or prompting, the person on the other end said, "George Klein is one of the best sedimentologists in the world, but he will make trouble." I filed that information in the back of my mind, but never experienced difficulties with him until 2008. In 1998, as we were launching our stock program under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 and '34,

Dr. Klein sent us a list of ten prominent people in the oil and gas industry as potential investors, and said, "When you contact these people, don't tell them I have given you their names, because they don't like me, and if they know I have given you their names, they won't invest." On the basis of that comment and his legacy at the University of Illinois, Dr. Klein's demeanor has apparently been well-established before we met him. His endorsement included cash and stock. His Internet statement as to Numatex "not being a typical oil and gas company or an R & D company" have to be taken in light of Dr. Klein's involvement and witness to eleven oil wells Numatex drilled in Webster County, KY, in 2005 and 2006.

He knows one of them came in as the biggest well in the State of Kentucky (the Commonwealth they call it down there). We have his picture with wife Su Yon standing beside the well as oil is flowing through the pipes - oil that flowed for 161 days without a pumpjack. Is that typical? George Klein knows those eleven wells have produced over 75, 000 barrels of oil since 2005.

Is that a"typical" oil and gas company? Did he bother to say that all the expenses of operating those wells falls to the Company and not its stockholders? Has he ever received a bill for any repairs or replacements of equipment, any water hauling bills, any tax or insurance bills, any administrative bills? Was he not one of the stockholders who have received over $1 million in royalties since 2005 from oil production? George Klein knows 100% that each of those wells was staked using technology we were working to patent, and that each of those eleven wells was part of the proving and improving of our technology.

He and every other stockholder received every single prediction of each of the zones we intended to drill, and the outcomes based on logs and our local geologist's reports. Is that "typical R & D" or not? The fact all the information we gathered from those wells was intended to be and has succeeded in providing scientific validity to our patent application of Jan. 31, 2012, begs the question, " Is that typical R & D or not?" Does not "typical R & D" require high levels of secrecy when working toward one of the most important patent applications ever to be made?

When George Klein publishes the statement that in 2005 I called him asking to "repurchase" his stock, it is a total lie. I have NEVER called him asking to "repurchase" his stock. In 2005 he converted the remainder of our endorsement cash obligations stemming from his 1997 contract to stock, because based on our drilling successes, Numatex had WITHOUT ANY PRIOR OFFERS OR COMMITMENTS, instituted a royalty program from our sale of oil, which eventually grew to 37 1/2% of our Net Revenue.

George Klein and his wife became beneficiaries of that royalty program to the tune of $34,674.66, based on a $30,000 contract conversion to stock, from 2005 through 2009 OVER AND ABOVE his original contract agreement. IS THAT A RIP-OFF? Why would Numatex call him asking to "repurchase" stock at the same time he makes his conversion? His statements that we offered to buy back any stockholder's stock at shareholder meetings is also totally false. Can anyone back that up?

This Company's position as to "repurchase" of stock and/or liquidation of stock is clearly stated in our Prospectus, which George Klein calls "dumb, " even though the whole program was determined by Congress to enable small businesses to raise money apart from the publicly traded stock market and without overbearing oversight by the SEC. That's "dumb?" As a member of the board, George Klein was obligated to understand the law.

In 2008 our price for oil dropped from $135 per barrel in July to $27.50 in February 2009. We, like every other oil company, large and small, lost 80% of our income. As the stock market was crashing, George Klein called me and said he "wanted to cash in his stock." He wasn't the only one. We had others, so we had to take pause. UNDER FEDERAL LAW GOVERNING THE REGULATION D PROGRAM, NO COMPANY CAN BE FORCED TO REDEEM ITS STOCK! On that basis we asked stockholders to tell us their needs.

George said he had "roof damage from Hurricane Ike." We had one stockholder who lost his job and others with medical needs. We made a list based on our legal rights, peoples' needs, our ability to help, and we did what we could. George Klein sent me a letter, DEMANDING TO KNOW WHY HE WAS NOT AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST! AND HE DEMANDED A CERTAIN PRICE! First and foremost, George Klein's stock was RESTRICTED STOCK, like mine, which means neither he nor I could cash in our stock ahead of anyone else without a public market.

Any securities attorney reading this note should be able to explain that to anyone who doesn't understand Regulation D programs. Second, the arrogance of George's demands were such that he went to the BOTTOM of the list.. He bombarded me with his demands for two years, and as he said, complained to the Missouri Div. of Securities, also the Kentucky Div. of Securities, and the St. Louis Better Business Bureau. Missouri had already investigated Numatex's stock program in 2005 & '06, contacting all our Missouri stockholders, and found NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS.

 Klein's complaint (as a Texas resident) to KY was without jurisdiction, The St. Louis Better Business Bureau investigated and found no fault with Numatex. We have a B+ rating there, based on lack of business activity in Missouri or St. Louis. Missouri told George Klein they weren't interested in his complaints. They already knew about us. With all his demands, evasions of fact, and accusations of "theft, " we have NEVER received a letter from an attorney representing George Klein, even though he claims to have consulted one.

Finally, in a fit of pique, he sent me a letter in 2010 SUSPENDING HIS ENDORSEMENT, which suspension was NOT based on any kind of scientific flaws or malpractice. He told us to "white out" or "cut out" his name from our Prospectus. " Because of all the arrogant trouble he had caused, we accepted his SUSPENSION as a breach of contract, canceled his stock, and have demanded all the money back he has been paid toward the 1997 endorsement and all the money he earned from oil, based on his stock conversion from the endorsement, now amounting to $134, 747.10 PLUS my time and damages.

He claims we owe him over $110,000 with no basis for his figures. He says he doesn't have the money to file a legal claim, so what has he done? He has gone to the Internet to smear our name and has been trolling the Internet looking for someone with whom to share his venom. Without further comment, anyone wishing to know the REAL George Klein should call the University of Illinois or the Illinois Geological Survey - or talk to the ten prominent oil clients who "don't like him."

Now, let's direct our response to "Jackie J." and Katrina Hornstein. First, neither of those two ladies has ever invested one thin dime into Numatex. They have never met me or my wife, have never called us on the phone, nor have they ever mailed us a letter. I question whether or not they have ever seen our Prospectus and Business Plan, and if they have, there is a very good chance a Confidentiality Agreement has been mortally violated. Anyone reading their "complaints" can see they are both almost word for word alike, so they are obviously on a mission.

 To be fair, they are trying to speak for an elderly lady. What they do not say is that the lady has many of her facts very much incorrect. She has called us many times and has never been turned away. She knows full well our cell phone numbers and has talked with us in various locations of the United States wherever we happen to be. Her nephew has also spoken with us by cell phone, and they have both visited our oil production in Kentucky.

She has received every monthly report of the Company's oil production, and has received every single quarterly royalty check to which she has been entitled. She is in fact one of those people we put at the top of our list in 2008 when the stock market was crashing along with the price of oil, to where when we temporarily fell behind in quarterly royalty payments, based on the market's collapse, we made sure this lady got her money.

This lady also complained to the St. Louis Better Business Bureau with the statement, "I am concerned about the future of the company" - not that the company had "ripped her off" or made any false or misleading statements or had taken any of her money under false pretenses. The St. Louis BBB investigated her complaints, and we cooperated 100%. The fact is, the lady told the BBB she had "over $40, 000 with the company," when she only invested $12,000, PLUS we GAVE HER 2,000 shares as a bonus - totally without strings attached,

all for which she is receiving the Company's generous royalty pay-outs from our sale of oil, which in her case has accumulated to $8,238.56 through March 2012, and her upcoming quarterly check is $190.69, out of which she pays none of the Company's expenses. It's royalty - not working interest. The fact also is we met with her and her nephew PERSONALLY, making sure she knew exactly what she was doing, and actually turned her down when she wanted to invest more. We made that decision based on her age and what we perceived as future medical needs, and we were right.

Every time she talks with us on the phone, she thanks us for "what we have done for her." The fact is, she has NEVER called us asking to redeem her stock, nor has she EVER written us asking us to do so. She misplaces her mail, and when she made her original investment in 2005, she made it for her heirs, saying she had plenty of money. So why has she misstated the facts to the BBB? Why have we NEVER received a letter from her attorney, whom we know she consults for every issue.

And who are "Jackie J. and/or Katrina Hornstein?" Do you two ladies realize you have severely smeared someone on the Internet without knowing or checking any of your facts? Do you realize you could both lose everything you have in a libel suit? What are your addresses so we can contact you? Why haven't either of you contacted us? Where is this lady's nephew in all this? Why hasn't this elderly lady cooperated with us pertaining to important paperwork pertaining to her heirs?

Wrapping all this up, my wife and I have been dealing with the public for 35 years, and many of our Numatex stockholders have been with us for 14 years. They invested in a potential major patent, which George Klein endorsed and the elderly lady also bought into. Our Prospectus and Business Plan were written in 1998, and every word has come true with minor variations, but every intent has been demonstrated, oil revenues have been generated over and above anyone's expectations, and our patent has been filed. Anyone considering Numatex and/or Thomas J. Wiley, Sr, need to know the facts - and the errors.

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.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory