SOMI 2003: Our Side of the Story

Stock Holders of Moller International


“Stockholders of Moller International” (SOMI) was organized in 2003 to defend Moller International (the Company) and its president Dr. Paul Moller from a purposely-misleading SEC press release since BY SEC STIPULATION NEITHER WERE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. SOMI had become appalled by the behavior of the SEC and in particular that of its regional attorney, Mr. X.

This attorney’s egregious actions began in 2001 when it appears he convinced himself that raising money to produce a “flying car” must somehow involve fraud. The Company’s Skycar® volantor is often referred to in the press as a “flying car”. Coincidentally during this period the Company chose to become a public company in return for having one of its largest stockholders agree to fund production of the Skycar® by exercising his stock warrants.

In late 2002 the Company became a fully reporting public company (OTC-QB Symbol: MLER), WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF IT HAD COMITTED FRAUD fraud or any other violation of SEC rules. However, early in 2003, this rogue SEC attorney, for reasons outlined on this website, generated a SEC press release that was blatantly untrue and clearly designed to hurt the Company. The adverse publicity that resulted devastated the Company stock price causing it to lose over 95% of its value and eliminated its ability to fund Skycar production through exercised stock warrants. Consequently over the following ten years the Company has been unable to adequately fund development of the Skycar® due to its severely damaged credibility.

In 2003 SOMI had drafted a press release to be provided to the wire services that charged Mr. X with repeatedly lying in both the SEC’s complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws filed on Feb 11, 2003 and in its litigation release on Feb 19, 2003. Below is a copy of that proposed press release along with evidence of SOMI’s attempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get the SEC to justify its behavior. THE SEC, NOT SURPRISINGLY, IGNORED THIS FOIA REQUEST. Under advice of SOMI’s attorney that the SEC would probably retaliate against the Company, the proposed press release was never issued for fear of the potential consequences. In hindsight, we as members of SOMI should have issued our 2003 press release since the damage done by not doing so has so dramatically affected deployment of the Skycar.


We the stockholders of Moller International (OTC: MLER) are charging Mr. X, a Security Exchange Commission (SEC) attorney, with repeatedly lying in both the SEC’s Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws filed on February 11, 2003 and in its litigation release 17987 which was provided to the wire services on February 19, 2003.

In initial response to this blatantly slanderous material, we asked the SEC, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to defend the accuracy of these charges. The SEC was unable or unwilling to provide any evidence supporting their claims against Moller International (MI) or its President, Dr. Paul Moller. We have appealed their negative response to provide them with a further opportunity to defend themselves.

MI during its many years of operations has acquired a significant number of stockholders. Not once have any of us complained to the SEC or any other agency about the way the company was being managed. Rather, Dr. Moller, has made sure that we have always been well informed about MI’s operations and progress. We applaud the company’s remarkable success in developing and demonstrating the solution to future transportation and are happy to be a part of it.

An example of Mr. X’ flagrant abandonment of the truth is offered as follows: Mr. X asked Dr. Moller, what value he assigned to his many patents. He replied that it is impossible to assign a precise value to patents even though the company considered them to be its most valuable asset. Dr. Moller also stated that the market would ultimately determine the dollar value of the company patents. Mr. X then stated in the Complaint for Violation that MI considered its patents as having no value. He went further, claiming that the company lied about the number of patents it held, which was easily proven to be untrue. Virtually every statement made in the SEC litigation press release and Complaint for Violation is misleading or untrue. Mr. X’s motive for his egregious behavior remains a mystery, however it is clear he felt that he could judge the company’s technology, which he chose to interpret as useless. We believe he saw an opportunity to enhance his career by destroying our 35-year-old company that by the SEC’s own admission had spent every investment dollar it had acquired precisely as it had stated it would. When he failed to bring down the company he became vindictive.

Because of previous complaints by smaller companies about its dictatorial behavior, the SEC claimed to have adopted a friendlier attitude towards those who cooperate. This claim was used by Mr. X to effectively deny the attorneys for MI the right to object during a deposition, given under oath by Dr. Moller. Mr. X stated during this deposition that if Moller’s attorneys were going to object he would return to his office and tell his boss that MI was not cooperating. Anyone who has ever dealt with the SEC knows the consequences if he had done this. As a result the following seven-hour deposition (on record) is essentially free from objections. What is not on record is Mr. X’s threat because he turned off the recorder and told the paralegal recorder to discontinue any written documentation of his remarks.

Mr. X claims we did not receive sufficient information before investing. If he really was concerned about this he could have requested that MI provide a rescission agreement to us. Such an agreement would have allowed Mr. X the opportunity to present us with every negative detail he could muster about the company. We could then, have received our entire investment back plus interest if we wanted to. Dr. Moller actually suggested this approach but Mr. X refused to discuss it, apparently sensing that the stockholders were satisfied and that this approach would end his case.

We believe that Mr. X’s unconscionable behavior has caused us to lose more than 95% of our stock value during a period when everything about the company and its products was positive and becoming more so. The lies in the litigation release and Complaint were just the final act in a long line of subversive acts by Mr. X towards MI. Unfortunately, as part of a federal agency, Mr. X appears able to operate with immunity from prosecution perhaps because the agency is not intimidated no matter how unfairly its agents behave.

In order to avoid contradiction, the SEC has threatened that if MI or Dr. Moller criticizes the SEC in any way, the SEC will withdraw the compromise agreement that Dr. Moller, under duress, entered into with them. Fortunately, MI stockholders still have a right to due process. Therefore we are taking this opportunity to point out the fallacy that the SEC is a consistent protector of the average investor. Rather SEC agents like Mr. X seem predisposed to go after a smaller company that, due to its limited financial resources, is unable to effectively fight back. The agent achieves success when a company or as in this case, its president, accepts that litigation is not an option and pays a fine without admitting or denying the allegations. The last thing an SEC agent like Mr. X seems to care about is protection of individual investors like us.