Investigation: EASI pledges its commitment to customer satisfaction & Affiliate support. Consumers can feel safe, confident and secure doing business with Energy Automation Systems Inc (EASI) an excellent business opportunity

---

*UPDATE.. Rip-off Report Investigation: Energy Automation Systems Inc- EASI, pledges its commitment to customer satisfaction. Most negative reports proven false & fabricated by competitors verified by Rip-off Report.. excellent business opportunity growing field of industrial energy conservation. Commitment to Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program.

Rip-off Report Investigation:
Editor's UDATE: Positive Rating and Recognition has been given to www.energyautomation.com/method.htm for its commitment to excellence in customer service.

Through many weeks of investigation, in spite of any claims made, Rip-off Report finds Energy Automation Systems Inc (EASI) offers an excellent business opportunity in the growing field of commercial and industrial energy conservation. Consumers can feel confident and secure when doing business with EASI. Rip-off Report found that the company is committed to delivering excellent customer service and supporting its international team of Affiliates. Rip-off Report confirms the majority of the posts about EASI were false and fabricated by competitors and the few legitimate claims made against the company were already resolved by EASI. Affiliates stated their complaint was premature. Despite the fraudulent actions of these individuals who posted the bogus complaints, EASI is committed to identifying and addressing all legitimate issues. Rip-off Report gives EASI a positive rating.

Rip-off Report found that Energy Automation Systems Inc (EASI) designs and installs systems that reduce electrical energy consumption, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and improve power quality in commercial and industrial facilities by enhancing the efficiency of electrical systems. For decades, EASI has provided systems that save businesses up to 30% on electric bills. As the cost of energy rises and concerns about the environment grow, businesses are working hard to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. EASI products are proven to do both. Due to the high demand for its products, EASI offers entrepreneurial individuals the opportunity to become Affiliates and sell and install EASI products as independent business owners. EASI offers Affiliates training programs, technical manuals, annual forums, web resources and access to support staff. EASI and its worldwide team of Affiliates have installed thousands of customized energy conservation systems for clients in more than 60 countries around the world. For information about EASI, visit www.energyautomation.com

Read more about Energy Automation Systems Inc (EASI) Commitment to Excellence andConsumer / Affiliate Satisfaction and why consumers should feel safe, confident and secure when doing business with a member of Rip-off Report's Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program. ..yes, a long name for a program that does a lot for both consumers and businesses alike.

Read about Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,..A program that benefits the consumer, assures them of complete satisfaction and confidence when doing business with a member business. this program works.

=====================
NOW TO THE ORIGINAL REPORT THAT WAS FILED
=====================

Energy Automation Systems, Inc. (AKA) EASI Was it disclosed on your States Business Opportunity Disclosure Document? The FTC disclosure? Did you get a Disclosure Document? Are laws not suppose to protect consumers? Hendersonville Tennessee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

SIGNSTRUT LIMITED, and ENERGY
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3-03-0700
Judge Echols
Magistrate Judge Brown
v.


ENERGY AUTOMATION SYSTEMS,
INC., and JOSEPH C. MERLO,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' FOURTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE


Defendants Energy Automation Systems, Inc. ("EASI") and Joseph C. Merlo ("Merlo") request the Court to exclude any testimony or other evidence concerning the criminal history of Jack Campbell, a former EASI employee. Mr. Campbell's conviction is irrelevant and thus inadmissible. Moreover, the highly prejudicial nature of testimony regarding the Mr. Campbell's prior conviction substantially outweighs its probative value. Consequently, Defendants request the Court to exclude such testimony, or, at a minimum, allow the evidence only as impeachment pursuant to Rule 609.

I. INTRODUCTION
Before being affiliated with either Defendant, Mr. Campbell was convicted of several crimes involving theft and forgery. Mr. Campbell's most-recent conviction was in June 1994. Sometime after Mr. Campbell's release from prison, Mr. Merlo (EASI's Chief Executive Officer) hired Mr. Campbell in 1998 to serve as EASI's Director of Marketing. Mr. Merlo made sure that Mr. Campbell's job duties were "partitioned" from al1 financial dealings. Plaintiffs had no interaction with Mr. Campbell before or after P1aintiff Energy Management Resources, LLC ("EMR) purchased its EASI dealership.


Mr. Campbell's employment at EASI ended on February 5, 2002, one month before EMR purchased the dealership.


II. ARGUMENT

The First Amended Complaint includes four fraud claims and a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") relating to EMR's purchase of an EASI dealership in March 2002 (1) (See generally Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 33). Testimony regarding Mr. Campbell's criminal history is immaterial and irrelevant for the purpose of proving Plaintiffs' claims. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. That evidence is also highly prejudicial when compared to its probative value, making it inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Any such testimony is admissible only for the limited purpose of impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime pursuant to Federal Rule Evidence 609.

A. Evidence of Mr. Campbells conviction is irrelevant for Plaintiffs' fraud claims.

Mr. Campbell's criminal history has no bearing on alleged representations made to Plaintiffs, and thus no tendency to make "the existence of any fact" with respect to those representations more or less probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further, the alleged activity in the instant case bears no relationship to crimes for which Mr. Campbell was prosecuted. Moreover, because no evidence exists indicating that Mr. Campbell played any role in the sale of the EASI dealership to Plaintiffs, his previous criminal record is of no consequence in this case.
Finally,Mr. Campbell's latest conviction was in June 1994-approximately twelve years ago-making, that evidence too remote to be of probative value in this case. Consequently, evidence of Mr. Campbell's criminal history is immaterial and irrelevant, making it inadmissible under Rule 402 to prove Plaintiffs' fraud claims. Even assuming such evidence were relevant and would assist the trier of fact, any probative value of an unrelated twelve-year-old conviction of a third-party is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendants. Such evidence is thus inadmissible
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Raising even the existence of Mr. Campbell's criminal history could, therefore, only be done to place Defendants in a negative light and suggest Defendants" capacity for improper action. In sum, Mr. Campbells conviction is neither material nor relevant to Plaintiffs' fraud claims and its probative value as to those claims is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.


B. Evidence of Mr. Campbell's conviction is irrelevant for EMR's TCPA claim.

Evidence of Mr. Campbells criminal conviction is irrelevant to prove EMR's TCPA claim. The gravamen of that claim is based on Defendants' failure to provide disclosures described in the Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule (the FTC Rule"), 16 C.F .R. 436.1 See Docket Entry No. 33, Court Three). EMR does not specify any other way in which Defendants violated the TCPA (2). (See id.). In fact, in an affidavit in support of Plaintiffs summary judgment motion on the TCPA claim John Miller EMR's owner and founder, addressed only the franchise disclosure issues, not any other allegedly unfair or deceptive acts by Defendants. (See Docket Entry No. 43).

Regardless, Mr. Campbells conviction has no relevance as to EMR's FTC Rule-based TCPA claim. Under the FTC Rule, a franchisor must disclose certain information to a prospective franchisee at the earlier of the 'time for making of disclosures' or the first 'personal meeting. (3) One of the required elements of the federal disclosures is whether any of the franchisors officers-which includes the chief executive and chief operating officer, financial, franchise marketing, training and service officers" -has been at any time during the previous seven fiscal years, been convicted of a felony or pleaded nolo contendere to a felony charge if the felony involved fraud (including violation of any franchise law, or unfair or deceptive practices law), embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, misappropriation of property, or restraint of trade. 16 C.F.R. 436.2.

EMR signed its dealership agreement with EASI on March 7, 2002. (Id. 15). EMR's owner, John Miller, attended a trade show and spoke with an EASI agent about the EASI dealership on February 24, 2002.(4). Accordingly, if disclosures were required, they were due to EMR no later than February 21, 2002, or ten business days before EMR signed the dealership agreement.
EMRs Rule 30(b)(6) witness, John Miller, testified that Mr. Campbell played no role in recruiting him to purchase an EASI dealer and that he has never communicated with Mr. Campbell. (Deposition of John Miller, excerpts filed herewith, at 149, 175). Signstruts Rule 30(b)(6) witness did not identify Mr. Campbell as an EASI employee or agent with whom he spoke about the EASI business opportunity. (Deposition of Rich Paglieri, excerpts filed herewith, at 21-29). Accordingly, neither plaintiff interacted with Mr. Campbell in his capacity as an EASI employee before Mr. Campbell's departure from EASI on February 5, 2002. Presumably, plaintiffs' intend to offer Mr. Campbell's conviction in the context of EASI's failure to disclose that conviction under the FTC Rule. That justification fails for two reasons. First, Mr. Campbell's employment with EASI ended on February 5, 2002. Accordingly, EASI was not obligated to disclose Mr. Campbell's conviction to EMR because he
was not an EASI officer when disclosures were purportedly due to EMR by February 21, 2002. Second, Mr. Campbell's June 1994 conviction was more than seven years before EMR purchased the EASI dealership in March 2002. Therefore, even if he was still considered an EASI officer in late February, 2002, his conviction did not have to be disclosed under the FTC Rule because it occurred outside the seven-year window. Consequently, Mr. Campbell's conviction is not relevant to prove Plaintiffs' TCPA claim.

C. Even the admissibility of Mr. Campbell's conviction for impeachment purposes is limited.

In a related case, this Court held that Mr. Campbell's conviction may be admissible for impeachment purposes. (See Docket Entry No. 127, Case No. 3:03-0469, LaPrade v. Energy Automation Systems. Inc.). Specifically, the Court held that "Mr. Campbell's 1994 conviction is admissible because he was released from confinement within ten years prior to trial. Fed. R.
Evid. 609(b)." (Id 6). Plaintiffs should not be permitted, however, to reference Mr. Campbell's to imply Defendants' "guilt by association." which is clearly improper under Rule 404. Therefore, should the Court hold that evidence of Mr. Campbell's conviction is admissible for impeachment under Rule 609, Defendants request that Plaintiffs be instructed that such evidence can only be used in accordance with that Rule and for the limited purpose of
impeachment.

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court preclude Plaintiffs from making any reference to Jack Campbell's criminal history or strictly limit such testimony to impeachment evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609.

(1)The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff Signstrut Ltd.'s TCPA claim because Signstrut did not purchase a dealership from EASI and thus could not be considered a "franchisee." (See Docket Entry No. 54). The Court also dismissed Defendants' claim under the Ohio Business Opportunity Plans Act. See Id.).

(2) A TCPA claim must be pleaded with Rule 9 particularity. See Harvey v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 8 S. W .3d 273, 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). The only unfair or deceptive act identified with any particularity in Count Three of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is the fai1ure to provide disclosures under the FTC Rule. (See Docket Entry No. 33, Count Three).

(3) The FTC Rule defines "time for making of disclosures" as: ten (10) business days prior to the earlier of (I) the execution by a prospective franchisee of any franchise agreement or any other agreement imposing a binding legal obligation on such prospective franchisee, about which the franchisor, franchise broker, or any agent, representative, or employee thereof, knows or should know, in connection with the sale or proposed sale of a franchise or (2) the payment by a prospective franchisee, about which the franchisor, franchise broker, or any agent, representative, or employee thereof, knows or should know, of any consideration in connection with the sale or proposed sale of a franchise.
See 16 C.F.R. 436.2(g). The FTC Rule defines "personal meeting" as: means a face-to-face meeting between a franchisor or franchise broker (or any agent, representative, or employee thereof) and a prospective franchisee which is held for the purpose of discussing the sale or possible sale of a franchise.
Id. 436.2(o).

(4) Mr. Miller testified that he received financial statements from EASI on Thursday, February 28, 2002, a few days after attending the trade show the previous Sunday. (Miller depo. at 54-55). Thus, his first contact with an EASI agent was on February 24, 2002.


Respectfully submitted,

Redacted


Case 3:03-cv-00700 Document 69-1 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 1 of 7
to
Case 3:03-cv-00700 Document 69-1 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 7 of 7

Fort Dix
Hendersonville, Tennessee
U.S.A.