RE: Edward Dames, F.M. Bonsall Lawsuit


February 8, 2001

RE: Edward Dames, F.M. Bonsall Lawsuit

To All Concerned:

Last summer of 2000 I purchased Edward Dames' interest in PSI TECH. Part of my deal with Mr. Dames was the transfer of all the company's assets including it's intellectual property. The intellectual property constituted work product, customer TRV files, and special remote viewing projects. All of this property is proprietary and as part of our deal was to remain with the company.

Sometime in July a character by the name of F.M. Bonsall (an ex-employee of PSI TECH) illegally gained entry into the Beverly Hills home of my partner, PSI TECH President Joni Dourif, and removed 30 boxes of company files along with numerous other personal property items. He then alleged that he turned over these files to Mr. Dames. To cover his tracks and avoid a criminal prosecution Mr. Bonsall claimed in a public letter spread throughout the R.V. community via the internet, to have had a relationship with Ms. Dourif and that he lived with her for 9 months. In actuality he was hired to water the plants while she was out of town.

After months of unsuccessful demands and letters back and forth to Mr. Dames trying to gain the return of company property, I became fed up with it all and decided it was time to file a lawsuit that compels him to return the property. A copy of my lawsuit is attached.

It is unfortunate that events unfolded the way they have in this matter wasting time and energy on such negative things, especially in light of the tremendous contribution and potential of PSI TECH, and TRV technology. But like many human endeavors this situation involved jealousy, greed and ego.

I am hopeful that in the end the parties responsible will do the right thing, but if not I am prepared to do whatever it takes to compel them to do so and seek appropriate damages. After all a deal is a deal. Stealing is stealing. And lies are lies.



DANE SPOTTS, individually and assignee of PSI TECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation,



EDWARD A. DAMES and JANE DOE DAMES, a marital community; and FREDERIC M. BONSALL, a single person,






COMES NOW the plaintiff Dane Spotts and alleges as follows:


1.1 Dane Spotts. Plaintiff Dane Spotts (hereinafter "Spotts") is a person residing in King County, Washington. Spotts is the assignee herein of all rights and causes of action of PSI TECH International, Inc. (hereinafter "PSI TECH"), a corporation.

    1. Edward A. Dames. Defendants Edward A. Dames and Jane Doe Dames (hereinafter

"Dames") are husband and wife constituting a marital community, and the acts of either defendant were done for and on behalf of said marital community. Upon information and belief, Dames resides in the state of Hawaii and transacts business in the state of Washington.

1.3 Frederic M. Bonsall. Defendant Frederic M. Bonsall (hereinafter "Bonsall"), upon

information and belief, is a single person residing in Los Angeles County, California.


2.1 Jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court for the State of Washington.

2.2 Venue. Venue is placed in King County, Washington.


3.1 Reallegations. Spotts realleges Paragraphs 1.1 through 2.2 as if set forth herein.

3.2 Stock Transfer Agreement. On or about August 10, 2000, Dames, individually, and as director of PSI TECH, entered into a Stock Transfer Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") whereby Dames agreed as consideration for the sale and purchase of his ownership interest in PSI TECH to transfer and deliver all intellectual property owned by PSI TECH to Spotts. Specifically, Dames agreed to transfer and deliver PSI TECH’s accounting records, corporate records, financial statements, check registers and ledgers, business checks, stock certificates, business files, client project files, customer records, training and master videotapes, and any and all other business records, assets and property owned by PSI TECH.

3.3 Performance. Spotts complied with the terms of the Agreement in all material respects. Despite repeated requests, Dames has failed and refuses to transfer and deliver the intellectual property owned by PSI TECH under his control and possession pursuant to the Agreement.

3.4 Breach of Contract. Dame’s acts and conduct complained of herein constitute breach of contract causing Spotts and PSI TECH to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

    1. Fraud and/or Intentional Misrepresentation. To induce Spotts to enter into the

    2. Agreement, Dames misrepresented his ability and/or intent to transfer and deliver PSI TECH’s intellectual property to Spotts. At the time Dames entered into the Agreement, Dames expressly and intentionally represented all intellectual property of PSI TECH would be transferred and delivered to Spotts, which was not true. Dames’ false representation was made without cause or justification. As such, Dames fraudulently and intentionally misrepresented his ability and/or

      intent to transfer and deliver PSI TECH’s intellectual property. Dames knew the representation was false. Spotts justifiably relied upon Dame’s representation to his detriment and to the subsequent detriment of PSI TECH. Spotts and PSI TECH have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
    3. Unlawful Conversion. In July, 2000, Bonsall intentionally and at the direction and

insistence of Dames unlawfully entered and removed thirty boxes (30) of PSI TECH’s corporate documents, business records and proprietary information which were located in Los Angeles, California at the residence of Jonina Dourif, an owner and director of PSI TECH. Bonsall entered and removed such boxes without consent. Bonsall further removed personal property owned by Ms. Dourif without consent. PSI TECH is the owner of the documents, records and proprietary information taken by Bonsall. PSI TECH is further the owner of the intellectual property identified in Paragraph 3.2 as set forth above. The intellectual property which is the subject of the Agreement and the corporate documents, records and proprietary information unlawfully taken by Bonsall have not been returned, transferred or delivered, and are wrongfully and intentionally being detained by Dames and Bonsall. Dames’ and Bonsall’s acts and conduct constitute unlawful conversion.

3.7 Defamation. On numerous occasions, Dames and Bonsall have expressly and intentionally published, communicated through the computer internet and broadcast on radio statements regarding (1) the ineffectiveness and poor quality of PSI TECH’s training and video courses, (2) false advertising by PSI TECH, (3) scandalous references of romantic relationships with Ms. Dourif, (4) disparaging comments directed at the owners and directors of PSI TECH and their educational and instructional background, and (4) flagrant and heinous expressions and assertions of "alien" connections to PSI TECH. Such statements made and published by Dames and Bonsall are utterly reckless, false, malicious, and unprivileged communications. Such statements directly expose PSI TECH to public ridicule, sarcasm, contempt, and deprive PSI TECH the benefit of public confidence to its detriment. PSI has been damaged from such statements made by Dames and Bonsall and will continue to suffer damages to its business and reputation





WHEREFORE, plaintiff Dane Spotts prays for relief as follows:

    1. Judgment against defendant Edward A. Dames, individually, and his marital

    2. community in an amount to be proven at trial;
    3. Judgment against defendant Frederic M. Bonsall in an amount to be proven at trial

    4. 2. Accrued prejudgment interest;
    5. Postjudgment interest;

4. Judgment ordering defendants Edward A. Dames and Frederic M. Bonsall to

immediately transfer and deliver all corporate assets, records and property of PSI TECH International, Inc. to plaintiff Dane Spotts.

5. Judgment ordering defendant Edward A. Dames and Frederic M. Bonsall to immediately refrain from engaging, making or publishing any unprivileged communications relating in any manner or method to PSI TECH, and its owners, directors, officers and employees.

6. Attorney fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit, to be taxed as costs against

defendants, or otherwise awarded;

7. Attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred in this lawsuit, whether awarded under statute, contract or other equitable grounds; and

8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2001.




Randal S. Thiel WSBA #18320

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dane Spotts