As with my previous articles discussing what’s missing from the latest Fireclean lawsuit, this one draws entirely upon Fireclean’s motions and other court filings in their lawsuit against George Fennell, as well as their lawsuits against me.
In other words, don’t take my word for it – take theirs. Please download the linked documents and draw your own conclusions based on Fireclean’s statements. At the end of this article, I will leave you with a few questions.
According to their lawsuit, Fireclean submitted samples of their product to various laboratories for testing. My first article regarding the formulation of their product was published on September 12, 2015. From what I can see, the tests Fireclean attaches to their lawsuit are all dated no earlier than September 12, 2015.
In a deposition, Ed Sugg appears to say he submitted Fireclean samples to Petro-Lube for chemical analysis in 2012, but those tests have never been released or included in any of their lawsuits or filings, to the best of my knowledge:
Ed Sugg declared to the Virginia court that the Fireclean formula had never changed on September 16, 2016:
However, less than six weeks later, the Brothers Sugg submitted another declaration to the court describing that not only had the formula changed, it had changed in September of 2015:
Now, according to the expert witness hired by Fireclean in the Fennell case, a PhD whom they paid several hundred dollars per hour, the additive differences didn’t matter and the different formulas aren’t materially different.
Unsurprisingly, Fireclean tried to get the judge to throw out the opinion of Fennell’s hired expert, who had a slightly different take on the matter:
I am left wondering the following:
Why aren’t results of the tests apparently performed by Petrolube in 2012 attached to their lawsuit(s)?
If they had results from Petrolube prior to September of 2015, why didn’t they immediately release them when the controversy first erupted – even before my first article?
Why did the Brothers Sugg claim the formula had not changed and then later admit that it had changed?
Why did the formula change the same month they submitted samples for the tests upon which they rely in their suit?