Edward Detwiler et al

17-Dec-09 – Detwiler letters to Ohio Dept. of Development added (No. 18).
18-Dec-09 – Leader appeal of Steiger partial summary judgment added (No. 4).

Columbus, Ohio (Dec 16, 2009) — Contrary to Plaintiffs´ sworn testimony in their defamation lawsuit against Leader Technologies that "Mr. Zacks did not attempt to take over the company" (MSJ, page 8, para. 2), former Leader programmer Betsy Foote wrote about her knowledge of the takeover and bankruptcy strategies advocated by Zacks in her April 6, 2005 email to Detwiler (full email [linked here]). All comments are Leader´s opinion:

"Ed, I really hope you are successful in your endeavor to have MM [presumably Mike McKibben] caught in his lies. If nothing else we might see the liquidation of the company if that comes to pass.

I am not sure whether Ben, et. al., [sic] are still interested in taking over the company and pursue [sic] sales of existing products… Could someone please comment on that?" (emphasis added)

This email was provided in 2005 to Leader as part of the discovery information in the Rampelt (and Detwiler) v. Leader lawsuit. Retiree Detwiler raises the possibility of filing this lawsuit in his "Hi all" message to which Foote was responding (her comments are cited above). The Rampelt lawsuit itself was filed on May 2, 2005, less than four weeks after Foote responded to Detwiler´s email. Of note in Detwiler´s email are his characterizations of his behavior as "one small step for the good guys" and "The chess game continues!"

Nine months earlier, on July 9, 2004, Detwiler had written Foote revealing their ongoing plans and attempting to recruit Foote to the cause (full email [linked here]). The following are pertinent excerpts from Detwiler´s email to Foote:

"… you [Foote] seem to be the informal leader [presumably of the former employees]

Since no one responded to my update about pursuing legal action, I thought maybe I had done something that may have caused concern. My intention is to do nothing that would harm any of our ´group´ (who ever that may be at any given time, but my definition would be generally those who participated with Jerry Scott discussions)…

Filed lawsuits are public knowledge and must be disclosed to new investors IF they are significant compared to overall assets of the corporation. Enough unsecured creditors can force the company into involuntary bankruptcy whereby the company can be reorganized at the discretion of the creditors or just shut down.[1]

You have a choice to pursue legal action with other W2 employees or… independently… Advantages to the group approach would be…

I am using a lawyer by the name of Tim Miller who is with Isaac, Brant [sic], Ledman, & Teetor, LLP."[2]

One might wonder why one of the conspirators would risk exposure by discussing the take-over attempt in writing. Subsequent discovery in the defamation lawsuit will shed more light on this question, but Leader believes Zacks et al were in search of unsecured creditors who would join their new idea to drive the cash-strapped company into liquidation by filing dubious lawsuits.

The fact is that on September 4, 2002, before the company had missed any payrolls, Mike McKibben convened an "all hands" meeting to discuss how the dotcom crash was affecting fund raising. He informed all personnel that the next paycheck was the last he could guarantee. He told the personnel that he would understand if they wanted to start looking around for different jobs, and said that Leader would continue funding efforts and pay as the company was able, but that if personnel chose to stay, it would be at their own risk. The Plaintiffs conspicuously avoid telling that part of Leader´s entrepreneurial story.

Every Leader investor remembers McKibben telling them to take the long view or don´t invest. Every investor also remembers McKibben´s prerequisite regarding voting control. Zacks, Detwiler, Steiger and Dunn agreed and signed on, changed their minds, then tried to mount a takeover. When the takeover failed, they concocted the involuntary bankruptcy strategy to try to seize the assets. After being informed of the likelihood of missing payroll, employees continued to work at Leader at their own risk, as did consultants like Detwiler. However, those facts did not fit the spin perpetrated by Zacks and his cronies (Leader Answer to Defamation Complaint, page 1).

All the while, Leader was supporting the country´s counter-terrorism efforts, saving lives after Hurricane Katrina, acquiring patents, working to grow sales, aiding in various homeland security efforts, and supporting schools and universities with health and safety alerting. (Click here for Leader® Newsroom.)

Plaintiffs say they did not try to take over the company.

Plaintiffs´ own documents prove they are lying.

* * *

Footnotes:

[1] Detwiler is a retired mainframe computer bank executive. This business discussion of the intricacies of securities disclosure and bankruptcy processes (which aren´t nearly so simple and without protections from such harassment) is well outside his competency, but may have impressed Ms. Foote, who at the time was a talented young programmer who had no business experience.

[2] Tim[othy E.] Miller of Issac Brandt Ledman & Teetor LLP also became the lawyer for E. Esther Barmack, an Illinois resident with no known ties to Ohio other than her Leader investments, the third of the dubious lawsuits, filed on Feb. 2, 2006. Plaintiffs claim "… she selected the law firm of Isaac Brandt to represent her with no suggestion by Plaintiffs." (MSJ, page 11, para. 1.)