As everyone who’s been following this blog knows, years ago three scam victims of Andy Esquivel banded together and filed a complaint alleging that Andy improperly sold them shares in a scam he was running at the time called “Xtagged”. This blog was instrumental in organizing those victims and served as a central distribution point for all evidence against Andy and his accomplices.
We all know the results: Andy plead guilty to two 3rd degree felony counts of securities fraud, spent some time in jail, a little more time in a mental institution, and was eventually ordered to pay his victims back over $13,000 plus interest. The outcome of case #111701135 has been the central theme of this website for years, but there’s a little known side story that everyone (including this author) completely forgot about.
You see, BEFORE the Davis County Prosecutor’s office formally filed charges against Andy, in fact before any of this was even in the hands of the Davis County Prosecutor, it was first handed over to the Utah Department of Securities. That’s right, for those of you who don’t remember, the ORIGIN of this case, immediately after the Bountiful police department, was a state agency specifically charged with enforcing state securities and exchange law.
The Utah Department of Securities (UDS) reviewed the evidence handed over to them by the Bountiful police department very carefully and made a recommendation for prosecution to the Davis County Prosecutor’s office. Before the first hearing was ever held in case #111701135, Andy was required to appear before the Utah Department of Securities and to try to explain why he shouldn’t face disciplinary action by that agency. Andy met with the UDS and along with Allen Brady, made a complete fool of himself. Video and blog posts about that meeting can be found elsewhere on this website.
The UDS proceedings were ultimately put on “hold” pending the outcome of the criminal case against Andy. Everybody forgot about it, including me! I did make note the Utah Raves thread that was the predecessor of this website explaining that UDS would be holding a hearing immediately after the case was resolved to determine what acton (if any) should be taken against Andy, but that was the last time anybody has said or posted anything about those proceedings…until now.
Hold onto your hats and sit down!
Unfortunately for Andy, the Utah Department of Securities DID NOT FORGET ABOUT HIM!!! Just as they informed Andy back in 2011, UDS did in fact hold a hearing immediately after Andy filed his plea deal in Davis County’s 2nd District Court. That hearing was held on March 25th, 2015 @ 9:00am and Andy failed to attend.
On March 25th, UDS Enforcement officer David Hermansen filed a “recommended order on motion for default”, to which the presiding judge responded in the affirmative. On March 26th, that motion was granted and a default order was filed.
What the order states in brief is that (a) Andy Esquivel did in fact knowingly sell “securities”, (b) that those “securities” were fraudulent, and (c) Andy is responsible for the consequences of his actions. The Utah Department of Securities therefore ordered that Andy pay $16,325 in penalties! $3,250 was due immediately, while the remaining $13,000 could be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by proof Andy Esquivel was instructed to provide within 30 days of reparations payments made to his victims. In other words, by April 25th, 2015 (two years and seven months ago), Andy was required to prove that he had payed something to his victims or he would be liable for the full $16,250. Andy never provided any such evidence, because at that time he had in fact not paid a dime in reparations to his victims. Thus, the full judgment currently stands.
In addition to the financial penalties against Andy, he is barred forever from selling securities in Utah or having any dealings whatsoever with licensed securities dealers. That means all the fundraising efforts Andy is currently undertaking for Smiley Heroes are illegal and will very likely get him further disciplinary action by UDS.
Before I wrote this post, I was under the impression that including child support, Andy Esquivel owed approximately $29,291.03 in various judgements and fines for his criminal activity. Now I understand that the actual amount is $45,541.03!
Andy, if you are reading this, do yourself a favor and contact the Utah Department of Securities at (801) 530-6628 immediately to make arrangements to satisfy this judgement. Reference case#SD-11-0033.
I will be updating the total owed on the homepage to reflect this new information. I’m sincerely sorry for not following up on the UDS case against Andy. I don’t know why it slipped my mind. At least we know exactly how deep of a hole Andy managed to dig himself into. At the rate he’s going, it will take him nearly eight (8) years to dig himself back out…good luck!
Andy is flat broke. He is unemployed. He lives with his mom. He’s collecting a few hundred dollars a month in unemployment (see this unemployment report which Andy filed with the court in November). He’s got judgments against him of over $37,000, including $24,000 in back child support. He’s been convicted of two felonies and has only narrowly avoided jail time. Yet in spite of all this, Andy keeps playing with fire!
In Tuesday’s hearing before Judge Connors, Andy was presented with the facts. He owes over $13,000 in restitution and fines, he was allowed to make payments of $500 per month, he failed to make those payments (because he couldn’t afford it) and now he’s $1,550 behind. The judge is giving Andy a lot of rope. He gave Andy one last chance to make arrangements with the court after Andy blew off his probation. Andy was in a pickle. He needed to explain to the Judge how he was going to catch up in order to keep from going to jail.
Promise Judge Connors that he’ll have the entire $13,203.71 (and counting) paid off within the next 45 days. Here’s a guy who crying to ORS because he can’t afford to pay $460 a month in back child support, has no verifiable employment, doesn’t own a car (and doesn’t even have a valid Utah driver’s license, so he couldn’t drive one if he did), lives off of his girlfriend, and yet he’s promising the court that he can come up with $13k in a little over a month? Not only that, he’s literally betting his freedom on it.
So on February 28th, Andy is going to walk into a 2nd District courtroom and explain to the prosecutor and the Judge why (a) he lied to them about being able to cough up a wad of cash thick enough to choke an elephant, (b) why he hasn’t been making his agreed upon payments for the last four months, and (c) why they shouldn’t violate him to jail immediately and throw the key into the Jordan river.
GOOD LUCK with that, Andy.
Here’s the courtroom audio for those who are curious.
Andy apparently thinks this can go on indefinitely. He seems to have convinced himself that if he throws out enough BS and plays dumb long enough, the court will eventually get bored and let him walk. Unfortunately for Andy, courts are patient and courts are final. He may be getting a lot of rope, but that’s not for him to escape with – it’s for him to hang himself with. At some point (after the very last bit of doubt has been erased) the courts will clamp down and Andy will feel the sting.
In the meantime, Enjoy your freedom, Andy. You have 42 days to prove you’re real (which you’re not). After that, this blog is going to get really entertaining.
UPDATE: Andy showed up with eight hundred bucks ($800). Court audio coming soon.
As everyone who has been reading this blog knows, Andy Esquivel is a deadbeat dad. He has seven (7) illegitimate children by at least three different mothers and he refuses to take financial responsability for any of them. The four he lives with are supported financially by their mother because Andy refuses to get a job. One was taken from him by the state and placed in protective custody (later adopted) and his two oldest kids have been cared for by their mother with absolutely no financial support at all from Andy.
A few years back Andy was arrested and forced to stand trial for failure to pay back child support in Colorado. Rather than pay the required fines and serve court ordered community service (too much like a job for Andy) he fled the state and now lives in Utah. Two separate cases were filed against Andy for back child support here, One in Davis County, where Andy originally settled, and another in Salt Lake County, where he fled to avoid harsh probation terms for the three felonies that are the subject of this blog.
As of this writing, Andy owes $24,184 in back child support (leniently calculated as if Andy had earned minimum wage for the first 18 years of his first two children’s lives). He has been making payments lately (no choice there since he’s collecting unemployment and the state garnishes those payments to satisfy past judgments from state agencies like ORS), but those have barely made a dent in the amount he owes. For more details, see this unemployment report which Andy filed with the court in November which shows that ORS is taking half of Andy’s unemployment.
Here are the case files for the two child support judgments against him:
Andy is somehow convinced that the child support case against him is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by this website. Nothing could be further from the truth. We didn’t have two kids out of wedlock, and we didn’t force Andy to ignore his financial obligations as a father to his two oldest children. This website in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with Andy’s child support woes, we just report them as a matter of fact. That said, here is a video link Andy recently posted of himself trying to talk his way out of his obligations:
In this video you can hear Andy trying to convince ORS that he sent them a check for $5,000. In reality, Andy never sent the check, he merely posted a picture of a check online and argued that he should get credit for the posting. Apparently, Andy doesn’t realize that posting a picture of a check and mailing it to the state agency responsible for collections are two entirely different things.
Andy also reveals in this video that he hasn’t had a valid driver’s license since 2012. No wonder he can’t find a job – it’s hard to convince an employer to hire you when you can’t even drive yourself to work.
It is a shame that Andy finds it so hard to come up with the money to satisfy all the judgements against him ($37,386.95 in total, a small fraction of the amount he’s stolen or neglected to pay), but it’s his own fault. If Andy Esquivel would simply get a job his life would be a heck of a lot easier. Unfortunately, Andy is allergic to work and refuses to obtain gainful employment anywhere. He’s full of excuses and lies, but sadly lacking in common sense.
Andy, here’s a hint for you (since I know you read this blog) – if you get a job, ORS might take a little more money, but it’ll be a much smaller percentage of your paychecks. Just go to work like everybody else. In almost no time at all, you’ll find that your victims are all paid back, the court is satisfied, and ORS might even cut you a break on your payments. Grow up and the world will work with you! Keep being a jerk, and it’ll only get harder to stay out of jail.
Those of you who have been following this blog for the last…I don’t even remember how long ago this started…anyway, Xtagged fans will wonder why I even bothered to post this because it’s so redundant. That said, another warrant has been issued for Andy Esquivel’s arrest. Ho-hum, what else is new?
The warrant was issued yesterday by Judge Connors because Andy neglected to show up for his January 10th case review hearing. Cash bail has been set at $5,000, which means Andy cannot bond out. He has to cough up $5,000 in dead Presidents or they’re going to lock him up until Judge Connors has time to ask him face-to-face why he isn’t complying with his court managed probation.
For those of you who don’t read this page often, let’s review how we got here: Andy plead guilty to two felony counts of securities fraud. He was sentenced to two five-year jail terms, which were suspended on condition that Andy comply with certain conditions of his probation. Those conditions included (a) getting a job and (b) paying fines, restitution, and interest. Andy was assigned a few probation officers, but he screwed that up by giving his PO the finger online. The court was lenient and allowed Andy to continue court-managed probation, but the terms were strict – pay $500 per month OR ELSE!!!
A hearing was set for January 10th to review Andy’s progress. Unfortunately, Andy has made no progress, so it was more than likely that Judge Connors would have greeted Andy with handcuffs and at least six months in jail. Andy could have shown up and plead poverty (after all, he’s currently collecting unemployment), but he chose to skip court altogether and take his chances. He is currently $1,550 behind on his payments to the court, which is a bad thing.
“The Defendant is not present and is $1550 past due on his financial obligations. The Court orders a $5000 cash only bench warrant for his failure to appear.”
Another review hearing has been set for January 17th, at which time Judge Connors will probably order Andy in absentia to serve a bunch of time in jail. He’s collecting unemployment checks right now, so it isn’t as if the state will have any trouble picking him up for his date behind bars.
Personally, I don’t know what Andy is thinking. This isn’t so hard – get a job, pay your child support, pay your fines, and pay your victims back. It’s only $500/mo. so I don’t understand why this is so hard. Andy’s life would be so much easier if he would just bite the bullet and get in line. Unfortunately Andy just isn’t willing to grow up.
As you can see below, Andy has responded to this post, both here and on Facebook. It’s pretty funny actually – on the one hand, Andy claims that he’s too broke to pay his fines and reparations because he doesn’t have a job, is collecting unemployment, and half his unemployment is going to pay back child support. On the other hand Andy claims to have a full time job working “graveyards” as his excuse for not showing up to court on January 10th.
Andy, you can’t have it both ways. Either you have a job or you don’t. For my money, I’m betting you’re unemployed. The fact is, you can’t collect unemployment if you are working “full time”, and you yourself admitted that you’re collecting unemployment, so…
I understand your dilemma. If you’re working, then you can afford to pay the court the money you owe. If you’re not working, you can plead poverty to the court, but you can’t afford to feed your family and you risk going to jail for a very long time. It’s a risky game you’re playing. I for one suggest you (a) get a job and (b) tell the court exactly where you are working (c) provide proof of your gainful employment and (d) start paying your fines. It’s the only way you’re going to stay out of jail.
Posted on February 1, 2016 in Andy Esquivel's Scams Andy's Threats Buzz/Wiser Karma Cause Ron Kelsay Trial Updates Uncategorized Wiser Car Cover Wiser E-Cigarettes Wiser Eyes Wiser Helmet Wiser No Phone Zone Wiser Technology Xooplay Xtagged
Andy Esquivel has been arrested (again) and is now in state custody. He was taken into custody just before noon on Monday, February 1st – booking number 201600817. His bail is set at $25,000 cash. He cannot bond out, he must pay the full amount to be released.
For those of us watching this drama unfold, this comes as no surprise. This is not the last time Andy will be arrested for probation violation, but because this is the first time it will be his shortest time in jail (30 days). Next time it’ll be 90 days, then 6 months according to AP&P guidelines.
I’ll post updates on Andy’s status and audio of the court hearings as they become available. My hunch, given how damning the report by Andy’s probation officer was, this won’t end well. Here’s the custody information website link.
UPDATE: Andy’s hearing before Judge Connors is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16th @ 9:15am.
UPDATE: Andy was released from jail on his own recognizance and a sentencing hearing has been set for March 8th @ 9:15am. At this hearing, based on what he is posting online, we expect Andy to claim that he has a job, that his parole officer is somehow ‘corrupt’, and that he needs a 6th PO who will be more sympathetic to his latest scam, SmileyHeroes.com.
UPDATE: The February 16th hearing was a short one, so we’re not going to bother posting the audio online.
UPDATE: Andy’s sentencing hearing has been postponed five times since his release, usually at the request of his public defender. The new hearing has been scheduled for June 14th @ 9:00am.
This is a remote post from the airport so will be brief:
Andy was sentenced today. 90 days in jail with credit for the 200+ days served so far. Andy was ordered to pay $500 in legal fees, $800 fine, and was ordered to pay $13,000 in restitution to his victims!
Andy was sentenced to 36 months probation, during which time he cannot use alcohol or drugs, must submit to random drug and alcohol testing, cannot enter establishments where alcohol is sold (clubs and bars), and must get and keep a job! He must also refrain from all criminal activity.
Andy immediately posted this video claiming that he only took the plea deal to keep Ryion, Kyle and Chris from making billions of dollars by suing Bump.cpm – whatever. Here’s a guy who couldn’t even afford a private defense attorney…how the hell is he supposed to be able to pay someone to help him sue a well funded startup?
Andy Esquivel has plead Guilty to two felony counts of securities fraud! No matter what he says from here out about the “conspiracy” against him, the fact is he’s a criminal, a serial felon, and a crook.
The plea followed over six months in custody including a stint at the Utah State Mental Hospital where after treatment Andy was found competent to stand trial for his crimes. As part of Andy’s plea deal, a single 2nd degree felony count of securities fraud was dropped. Andy remains free on $10,000 bond pending his sentencing on October 7th.
Andy celebrated his release from jail by posting on Diigo and bashing those who have helped see him charged with his crimes. He’s tried to hitch his wagon to Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow by implying that somehow the conspiracy against him is related to their recent indictment. The reality of course is that Andy’s case is in no way related to anything but his own criminal activity and that there is no ‘conspiracy’ against him, only a desire to see him pay for his crimes.
The maximum penalty for each of the two 2nd degree felonies Andy has now confessed to is 5 years in prison. Given Andy’s behavior prior to and during his trial, the victims and the authors of this blog obviously hope that Andy is sentenced to the maximum. He’s certainly proven that he has absolutely no remorse for his actions and will continue his criminal activity as soon as he is free.
I will post the audio from Andy’s competency hearing as soon as it arrives. In the meantime, stay tuned for more psychotic rants from this pathological lying sociopath and the brainless minions who worship him.
Before Andy Esquivel was institutionalized, he sent a Facebook message to his cousin Edward who’s mother Andy ‘spoofed’ on LinkedIn to make himself look more legitimate. We recently received a copy of the rant and I thought it was appropriate at this time to post it. The reason this post is interesting is that it discredits Andy’s claims that he’s an innocent victim of racism. The thing about sociopaths is that they always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of (notice Andy’s prominent use of the “N” word towards the end of this rant).
Note: caps and punctuation mistakes are Andy’s, not mine.
Edward this is Andy I came back at 5:00am not because I am tweaking as you say on YOUR Facebook PAGE…. I am working on WEBSITES not Facebook bro you see most people are asleep NOT YOU bro, so we work on the WEBSITES at graveyard look at my email to my attorney I will post :0x Sindy sent that for a reason just wait for it…… I’ll post email next! (But what I want to say most Mista GANG BANGA EDWARD GONZALES – Mom family, Jesse in Denver you watching this shit, Edward even IF I was guilty, I am NOT but let’s just say I was for your sake “YO WTF YR MIDDLE NAME SNITCH!” Edward made deal for himself with Daryl) Aunt Chue when Edward was 5 he used to walk around asking all of us to play cards, it was cool until you beat Edward you all remember he would freak and say we are cheating all because Edward lost! See a doctor bro (OH don’t worry I will bring you up Edward) look at my next post u will get it. Edward you lost state only has 3 wits racist Ryion, Kyle and Chris they used their NIGGER DARYL to try and help my ex father in law North Salt Lake City Chief of police Hanson bring down Xtagged: https://www.diigo.com/item/…/7ra2 FYI Daryl never knew any of this that’s how he got caught up in this and dragged you guys in, Daryl & Edward stated I scammed hundreds of people and I never filed for patent: https://www.diigo.com/item/…/9hrw You’re a fool Edward this money BILLIONS is a dynasty for our family you already seen the patent paper work stop acting dumb. Your mom owns 6% & you nothing that’s why you’re mad, just shut-up until trial yr digging deeper hole.
FYI- Nobody blog for me anymore period not even film people Sindy was the only one.
You’ll also notice Andy proudly proclaiming that his fake businesses (which includes a goofy little ripped-off cartoon website called ‘Smiley Heroes’) are worth “BILLIONS”. Honestly, if I wasn’t documenting this guy’s psychosis, nobody would believe any of it.
Just in case there was any remaining doubt about whether Andy Esquivel is crazy and his various businesses were all thinly disguised scams, here’s the latest post on WiserTechnology.com. I haven’t checked that website in ages, but did today just for kicks. This image is all that is left of Xtagged, Wiser technology, and all the hard work of lunatics like Allan Brady, Shar Jenkins, Steve Klemark, and the rest. This is what’s come of what was supposed to be a milti-billion dollar venture started by a man now confined to a padded cell in a state mental hospital. THIS IS IT!!!
The word ‘Anti-climax’ just doesn’t do this image justice…
Andy Esquivel has been keeping himself busy writing letters from jail. He’s now been moved to a mental hospital, but it’s still interesting to see how Andy kept himself busy. Below is a link to several of these letters – including one from his “spouse” (girlfriend actually) and one complaining about his newest public defender. The letters are hard to read, but still fun.
Incidentally, I’m curious what Andy’s personal biographer Ron Kelsay is thinking right now. I’d give $50 bucks to see the look on his face when he reads these letters from jail and realizes that his documentary is never going to sell any tickets. I wonder what Allen Brady is thinking now that his dream of moving into a $2 Million dollar house with the proceeds from some lawsuit over Xtagged evaporate. I wonder what Steve Klemark is thinking now that he realizes he drove his wife to the brink by chasing a drug addicted con-man around for years. I wonder what Shar Jenkins is thinking right now, realizing that his dream of opening a night-club in Park City have vanished. Guys, you’re welcome to post your thoughts – we’re all dying to hear form you!
Update: I spent a lot of time trying to understand these letters and after way too much time immersed in Andy’s gibberish I realized that int he second (or third) letter, Andy is actually trying to convince the judge to recuse himself from this case and grant Andy a change of venue with a new judge. If that’s not a sign of pure desperation, then I don’t know what is.
Our friend Andy Esquivel is currently wasting away in Davis County jail waiting to be sent to a padded cell at the Utah State Mental Hospital. He’s apparently not enjoying his stay very much because he’s lobbying through his girlfriend to be moved sooner rather than later. It sounds as if Andy thinks he’ll get better treatment in the mental hospital than he is currently receiving in jail. Here are the court notes on the most recent exchange:
04-16-14 Note: Clerk received a call from DEF’s spouse and family member
asking why DEF was not transported to the Utah State
Hospital yet. Clerk informed them that the prosecutor’s
office was advised by the jail that DEF is on the waiting
list, but he is #20 on the list. Therefore, has not been transported to the State
Poor Andy. It apparently still isn’t sinking in that he’s criminally insane and that society has no further use for him. Maybe he thinks he can con a psychiatrist into letting him go home early. Whatever is going on inside that warped brain of his, I’m glad it’s happening in jail instead of out on the street.
Andy keeps writing letters from jail. Here are the latest two. They’re pretty sad and pathetic, but also kind-of funny. In these latest letters Andy pulls out all the stops to convince the judge to let him out. “Mental institution, misdemeanors, anything but jail you honor!”
He even tells the judge that he’s got him on YouTube and and that the North Salt Lake Chief of Police is his father-in-law (which is a lie because Anyd’s never been married). Pretty sad the lengths to which a con-man will go to get out of a bad situation.
You guys will think this is funny: here’s a copy of a letter which Andy Esquivel wrote while in jail in Davis County. In this letter, Andy complains about both the prosecutor and his newest public defender. He also compares himself to Martin Luther King and brags that he marched around the jail yard all day on Martin Luther King’s birthday.
Here’s a copy of the letter [PDF].
It’s pretty sad and pathetic. I’d write more about it, but I’m really busy this week.
We just got the official commitment order [PDF] for Andy Esquivel. It’s pretty hilarious – basically says everything we’ve been saying on this website for years: Andy is delusional, doesn’t understand the charges against him, can’t comprehend the consequences if he is convicted, can’t assist the prosecution or make an intelligent decision about his defense, suffers from serious mental illness, etc.
If you read between the lines you also realize that what it’s saying is that Allen Brady hasn’t done Andy any favors by trying to act as his surrogate legal counsel. If Allen had a brain himself (and was trying to help Andy) he would have encouraged Andy to plead guilty years ago, to get a job, pay child support, and to pay his victims back the money he stole.
Posted on March 3, 2014 in Andy Esquivel's Scams Andy's Threats Andy's Videos Buzz/Wiser Karma Cause Trial Updates Wiser Car Cover Wiser E-Cigarettes Wiser Eyes Wiser Helmet Wiser No Phone Zone Wiser Technology Xooplay Xtagged
Just when you guys thought Andy would never post on YouTube again (because he’s in JAIL), Andy defies the odds and manages to get a video posted anyway. Boy, this guy REALLY doesn’t know when to shut up!
In this latest video, Andy convinces his girlfriend (he’s now using me as the excuse why he never married her in spite of the fact they have three kids together) to put him on speaker so she can record him from jail and post online. It sounds like he’s calling from the common yard at the Davis County jail because there’s lots of commotion around him.
Andy explains that he’s in jail of his own free will. That he asked to be sent to Jail on January 7th because ‘the prosecution has postponed his trial six times’…which makes perfect sense, right? Andy tries to put his own spin on his February 11th hearing claiming that he’s being committed to a state mental hospital because the Judge wants to prove he is sane, not for restoration of sanity because he is insane as is actually the case. He rambles on and on about the conspiracy against him, his million dollar lawsuits, all his inventions – basically all the delusions that are the reason he’s being held for restoration right now in the first place. He demonstrates in the space of five minutes that indeed the psychiatrists are absolutely correct – he is not mentally competent to stand trial and he is badly in need of psychiatric help.
Half-way through the video, Andy is interrupted by an inmate named “Boss” who tries to explain that in fact the fight he was just part of was not his fault and was nothing for his wife to worry about. The guy Andy got into a fight with should never have been let out of isolation because, like Andy, the inmate he fought with was is mentally disturbed. Andy also brags that he’s lost a lot of weight in jail (I guess he’s sensitive about his weight) and that jail isn’t so bad after all.
I never thought I’d live to see the day when Andy Esquivel is posting psychotic rants from behind bars, but here it is. He has no idea why he’s there, no idea what he needs to do to be released, and shows no signs that his delusions have abated. Between us, I think Andy is going to be incarcerated for a very long time, because he’s never going to admit that he’s a delusional mess and needs help. The more he resists treatment, the longer he’s going to remain in state custody and I personally believe that’s a good thing.
I wonder what Allen Brady, Steve Klemark, Shar Jenkins, and Ron Kelsay are thinking right now? “…Boy, were we stupid!”
At long last we’ve received the audio transcript [AUDIO]of the February 11th hearing in which Andy Esquivel was ordered “held for restoration” (of sanity) at the Utah State Mental Hospital. At this hearing Alan Brady also received a stern warning against continuing to pretend to be Andy Esquivel’s attorney.
It was an eventful hearing to say the least!
First of all, Andy’s public defender was not present at the hearing. He’s still very much in charge of the case, but it’s curious that he was not able to attend. Has Andy pissed off another public defender? Telling is the fact that before the end of this audio transcript we hear Andy meekly declare to the judge “…he lied last time, I don’t trust him” as the Judge continued to explain that all motions need to be filed through his attorney and could not be submitted willy-nilly to the court.
Which brings us to Alan Brady: As you all know, Alan Brady has been acting as Andy’s pseudo-attorney for years now, helping him draft legal-looking court documents and such to perpetuate Andy’s various schemes. Alan’s latest foray into make-believe legal work has been to draft a motion for dismissal on Andy’s behalf and to file it with the court. Alan apparently told the attorney assisting Andy in court on the 11th about thee motions he’d been drafting and filing and got spanked! We don’t obviously have a recording of the conversation, but the attorney mentioned several times in the audio transcript before the Judge that she told Alan in no uncertain terms that drafting legal documents and pretending to be an attorney (as he’s been doing for years now) is illegal. She states that she told Alan flatly (and reminded him indirectly several times in court) that Andy can draft motions if he wants to, but if Alan continued to do so, he could be charged.
It was actually telling how much time the court spent on this subject and I think everybody in that room knew Alan Brady was walking on very thin ice.
The state submitted a motion to have Andy held for restoration (of sanity) which the court accepted. Andy through his stand-in attorney saying that he’s been in jail for a long time and that he wanted his ‘bail’ reduced so that he could attend to some medical issues. The court (and his representation) explained that bail wasn’t an issue since he was being held for restoration and is basically going to be incarcerated until his various delusions are cured (you know, the ones where he’s a genius inventor who’s being persecuted by a shadowy conspiracy to cost the world millions and billions of dollars). In other words, either Andy admits that he’s a con-artist, that all his ‘inventions’ are fake, that Wiser Technology and Xtagged were basically scams and that he’s been lying all this time in order to screw people out of money, or he stays in the state mental hospital until the state gets bored and decides to drop the charges against him.
Once it started to sink in for Andy that he was likely to remain in state custody for a very long time, he he suddenly had a change of heart about those “misdemeanors and no jail time” that he’s been complaining that his attorneys tried to trick him into taking ages ago. “I’ll take the misdemeanors and no jail time then,” he said desperately to the end of the transcript, but as the court explained – it’s too late.
One thing Andy tried to do made at least some sense – he tried to file a motion (or rather Alan Brady tried to file a motion on Andy’s behalf) to strike the jury trial and switch to a bench trial where the Judge has more latitude to act. Unfortunately, Alan isn’t an attorney and the court made it clear to Andy that no such motion would be considered unless it came directly from his public defender. Ironically, Alan (and Andy) got the idea to strike the jury trial form this website. Your welcome for the free legal advice fellas. 😉
As Andy has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial due to his obvious insanity, a hearing has been scheduled for August 12th to determine whether by that time he will be sane enough for the trial to continue.
More details to come – we’re waiting for the audio transcript of the February 11th pre-trial to understand the full details. Andy remains incarcerated in Davis County jail until further notice.
Case update available here: [PDF]
Convicted felon and serial con artist Andres “Andy” Esquivel is in jail tonight after a hearing to review the results of his court-ordered mental evaluation. We’re still waiting for the clerks to update the notes on today’s hearing, but the net result is that Andy is in Jail, which is a good start.
As yu can see in this photo, Andy is getting fatter and still hasn’t found a solution for his acne problem. That said, it must really suck to be the father of six illegitimate kids (one in diapers) who’s broke, unemployed and stuck behind bars. We can’t share the results of Andy’s mental evaluation with you because they’ve been sealed by the court, but we can tell you that whatever was in those reports, it didn’t help Andy stay free today. He was booked at 10:39am, immediately after his court hearing this morning.
I’ve lost count of the number of times Andy’s been to jail since we started exposing his scams to the world and encouraging victims to file charges. My hope is that by the time Andy gets out he will have learned a lesson and will decide to become a contributing member of society rather than a leach.
After begging Judge Connors to let him have a public defender again, Andy Esquivel got his wish and was assigned C. Markley Arrington. His temporary defense attorney was Albright while the court found someone who was actually willing to take the case. Andy claims he’s ok with a public defender (and no longer thinks there’s a conspiracy within the PD office to conspire with this blog and put him in jail) as long as they stop trying to talk him into taking a plea deal.
The bottom line is that Andy has a public defender again (he’s too broke to afford a private lawyer in spite of his repeated proclamations over the years that he has dozens of corporate attorneys between Denver and LA) and that attorney is under strict instructions from Andy not to entertain any pleas of ‘Guilty’ no mater how damning the evidence stacked against him.
Arrington, who represented Andy briefly while the court sought out Albright for his defense, asked the court on September 3rd to postpone the final PTC until September 17th, presumably to give him more time to formulate a defense or negotiate a guilty plea with Lyon. My guess is that next week Arrington will petition the court for another trial extension to give him more time to convince Andy to plead ‘Guilty’ and to give Andy more time to raise the money he’d be required to pay back to his victims as a certain condition of such a plea.
I’m not sure Judge Connors would go along with such a plan as he’s beginning to lose patience with Andy’s courtroom antics and stall tactics, but it’s the safest bet. Otherwise we’ll all be in court on October 16th for the quickest and most entertaining trial in recent memory. Unfortunately Andy won’t be able to call all the ‘witnesses’ he promised and almost certainly won’t be allowed to testify himself. It’s a shame Andy did such a piss-poor job representing himself – we were all looking forward to watching Andy make a complete idiot of himself at trial.
Sorry for the delay in posting, but we wanted to wait to post until the audio transcript from the August 7th hearing was available. That audio transcript is now available here (FLV), and it’s hilarious! Nothing is more satisfyign than listening to a respectable Judge and a professional attorney trying to deal with Andy Esquivel and losing their patience with his ineptitude.
In this hearing, Andy begins by saying he’s finally ready to “take the lawyer”, meaning a public defender. Unfortunately for Andy (and the prosecutor points this out) he was already offered a second public defender but, like an idiot, he told the court flatly that he refused to accept the help of the public defender’s office because he thought they were involved in a conspiracy against him.
Andy continuously claims to have filed a motion for discovery with the court, in spite of the fact that the clerks office has no record of such a filing. Judge Connors at one point becomes exasperated and just breaks it down for Andy: (11:45) “Mr. Brady put your arm down…Mr. Esquivel, I don’t know how many times we need to have this discussion. You cannot just continue to represent yourself and ignore all of the court’s rules!”
Andy blabs on and on about how he’s now willing to take an attorney, but the prosecutor pointed out that we’re now months down the road from the date when Andy lost his first public defender and refused another and he doesn’t believe that another attorney will be ready by trial. “His conduct in the state’s opinion is destructive and it’s delaying tactics.”
At the end of the day, the Judge told Andy to file a proper discovery motion by COB Friday (which he never did). Andy then told the Judge “if you give me the discovery then I’ll hire my own attorney,” after which Andy filed a financial affidavit [PDF] claiming that he’s broke and can’t afford an attorney. Andy admits in the affidavit that he hasn’t worked since June 2009, that the highest he ever earned was a measly $12/hr., that his girlfriend (who he falsely claims is his “wife) doesn’t work, that he has no assets (not even a car) and that he pays no rent. Oh, here’s Andy’s contact information in case anybody wants to sue Andy in civil court:5789 Middlewood Ave. Kearns, Utah 84118 (801) 819-5126
The Judge told Andy that at this point he has no intention of postponing trial anymore. The current trial date is October 16th, 2013. My hunch is that the prosecutor is going to object to Andy’s request for counsel because (a) there’s no time for the new public defender to review the case before trial and (b) because Andy’s affidavit is completely false…Andy didn’t even list how much money he spends on rent in the document, even though in his latest video he’s bragging about his new house.
You guys need to just listen to the hearing. I’m tired, and it was too funny to adequately convey in a blog post. In the end, Andy looked completely inept…which of course he is. Andy’s motion to dismiss makes him look even more inept. The fact that he’s now begging for an attorney makes him look pathetic on top of inept. Oh boy, at least we’re nearing the end of this trial and Andy will soon either plead guilty or be convicted of fraud.
The motion hearing scheduled for yesterday was postponed until August 7th. We would have posted this sooner, but we wanted to see what Andy would post after he showed up for court and found out there was no hearing. Usually Andy goes ballistic and writes a 50 page email ranting about conspiracies and the like whenever there’s a postponement like this one. In this case, Andy’s annoyance at wasting his gas to drive to court first thing in the morning hit with a ‘squish’ and no mass email was sent out to “the media” blaming the delay on corrupt prosecutors or shadowy government agencies looking to stop him from saving the world. As always, the latest court updates (including this postponement with details regarding the reason for the delay) can be found here [PDF].
In the meantime Andy figured out how to file a discovery motion and did so on Monday. He even went to the court with Allen to file the document himself, which is impressive. Too bad he gave the court a fake phone number or he’d have known that there was no court on Tuesday. The postponement was filed on Monday while Andy was int he building, but when the clerk tried to call Andy there was no answer. Andy seems very eager to get his hands on the prosecutor’s witness list, and is now referring to all his fraud victims as “TRAITORS” on a regular basis.
Nothing else new to report. Andy’s been rather quiet since getting sentenced in Colorado to serve 64 hours of community service for failing to pay back child support. Andy is so intent on not working that he even claims to have moved back to Utah to avoid the sentence. Don’t worry Andy, it’ll be waiting for you when you get out of prison and return to Colorado.
Well, it’s official – Andy Esquivel won’t be allowed to call any witnesses at his jury trial in October. In fact, Andy won’t be able to present any evidence of consequence at his trial in October, so he’s essentially screwed.
On June 10th Judge Connors signed a motion to compel [PDF] filed by Prosecutor Nathan Lyon which gave Andy until May 21st to provide the prosecution with full details of all his witnesses and all evidence Andy intended to present at trial. Andy failed to comply. The list Andy did provide was incomplete and the witnesses all found to be irrelevant to the case. Andy’s evidence was likewise found to be completely irrelevant to the charges against him.
The motion to compel signed by Judge Connors EXPLICITLY states that any evidence not provided to the prosecution by May 21st will not be permitted at trial! May 21st was over a month ago, so Andy has missed his deadline to present any evidence which could support his defense. Since nothing that Andy has provided up until now will help him at trial in October, Andy basically won’t have a defense in October.
(No lawyer) + (No defense) + (No evidence) + (Refuses to admit he did anything wrong or to pay his victims their money back) = Andy Esquivel is definitely on his way to prison in October. Good luck with that, Andy!
To say the least, it’s been an interesting couple of weeks since Andy’s last pre-trial hearing. We’ve got a lot to cover, but I’ll try to get through it all as quickly as I can.
First of all, a new date has been set for Andy’s securities fraud trial. The fireworks begin on October 16th and will continue for three days. As always you can find the latest trial updates by clicking on any case update link [PDF] you find on this website. The trial is stilled set up as a ‘jury trial” rather than a “bench trial” because Andy isn’t smart enough to know that the only chance he has of getting this case thrown out by the judge is if he reverses the decision by his previous “super lawyer” to take the case out of a judges hands and to wait for nine jurors (who aren’t likely to fall for his crap any more than we do) to pronounce him guilty.
As reported last month on this site, Andy Esquivel recently sent out a mass email (to his supporters supposedly) in which he listed all the people he claims to want to call as witnesses at his trial. The list was prepared in response to a court order earlier in the month in which Judge Connors demanded that Andy comply with a reciprocal discovery motion by the prosecutor [PDF]and list all the people he intended to call as witnesses. We obtained the full list because one of the journalists who Andy insists on spamming is secretly preparing an expose on what a complete fraud Andy is and they were generous enough to share Andy’s email with us. We correctly reported last month that (a) Andy failed to include contact information for the witnesses he claimed he was calling and (b) almost nobody on Andy’s list had even the slightest relevance to the case.
Almost as if to confirm the astute insight of this blog, Prosecutor Nathan Lyon on Thursday filed this motion [PDF] with the court asking Judge Connors to throw out Andy’s entire witness list as irrelevant to the case against him and lacking even the most basic contact information on the people listed. The prosecutor reviews each name on the witness list (in much the same way we did on our blog post) and explains why each one is not only irrelevant to the case, but calls out the fact that Andy’s videos and links are “rambling and nonsensical.” The only “witness” that the prosecutor approved of was Logan Laws, who is frankly on deck to testify for the prosecution so it makes little sense for Andy to call him for the defense.
In short, Andy Esquivel just got emasculated by the prosecutor and told to go home and start over from scratch…and he is still posting ridiculous videos and sending out senseless emails. Here’s an example:
Mr Lyon I never published this witness list why did you let Plaintiff Ryion Butcher put this on his slander site:
I have attached a copy. Allen we never published, this is why Steve Klemark’s wife tried to commit suicide all the harassment from the plaintiffs & co-conspirators trying to scare me to take plea… Lyon stated oh well when I told him of Steve’s wife last year and the attorney brotherhood that Allen and I recorded Holje say to us looks like it does exist.
Your plaintiffs say J.King from I-safe is going to testify against me remember I told King about the slander/smear campaign since 2009 we recorded it so as soon as you finally release the list that Holje nor six month Albright ever got… I will address all 4 on the list one by one I sent motion by mail we are still waiting to see who’s on list all these lies will hit a wall very soon.
Ryion Butcher stated to Xtagged witnesses which is also witness tampering, that we have reported to Mr. Lyon Davis prosecutor more than once Allen Brady went to Mr. Lyons office LAST YEAR I have web cam of Mr. Lyon and I speaking about this and Ron the documentary film maker has video from last year on Mr. Lyon and Mr. Holje call Ron 720.233.4104 Ron Kelsay! I have attached a screenshot that Ryion posted of his blog attacking my family and Ryion tells people that the prosecutor is the one telling him to attack!!! Ryion tells Xtagged owners “Just say you are a security not an owner and we can take Andy down! I am now writing a letter to the judge informing him about all the PERJURY & WITNESS TAMPERING ALLEN BRADY can verify (1.801.819.5126) the plaintiffs have committed through out this trial and are still committing with the help of Mr. Lyon says Ryion Butcher, ITS ALL LIES I have a video uploaded at karmacause proving all, Ron has video that dates earlier. My family and the media don’t believe that you guys know what plaintiffs are doing to all of us and they say court is not in order! I told Mr. Lyon about Steve Klemark’s wife and much more! Now that Mr. Lyon knows Xtagged, Inc. paperwork is 100% real not to mention all the non non-disclosures plaintiffs signed and the multiple counts of perjury that the plaintiffs have committed, the damages that www.Xtagged.co causes will be at fault of the state.
Now what exactly does the above email tell us, other than the fact that Steve Klemark’s wife tried to kill herself because she finally realized that her husband was up to his chin helping a convicted felon execute numerous scams at the potential price of his own job with the Devner PD and she couldn’t live with the idea that he might go to jail too. Isn’t it interesting that a guy who threatened to release sex tapes of potential witnesses in his securities fraud trial to the media is accusing others of ‘witness tampering?’ Andy why is Andy so convinced that ‘his family and the media’ are on his side here? First of all, only one reporter in the media even cares that Andy is about to go to jail and most of Andy’s family have disowned him and his convicted felon of a mother as pariahs. Most are now reaching out to me (unsolicited) and expressing support for this website and sympathy for the victims of Andy’s criminal activity. When is Andy going to finally realize that the only people who think he’s innocent of these crimes are drug addicts like Alan Brady and fellow criminals like Ron Kelsay and that the only person facing jail time for his crimes is himself?
The bottom line is that this trial is almost over. With Andy Esquivel continuing to send impotent letters to the judge in this case (unaware that they’re doing absolutely no good) and being endlessly distracted by his own YouTube channel, Andy is sure to be convicted and sentenced before Christmas. The only question is how many years in prison is Andy going to get. I for one say the longer the better!
Pathological lying sociopath and convicted felon Andy Esquivel, who is representing himself in his own securities fraud trial, has published his witness list for trial. We’re sharing it here to help others understand how crazy Andy really is and to display the full extent of Andy’s criminal activity. The words below are Andy’s with the truth in brackets.
Daryl Acumen: he recommended law firm look at the seven email video Allen fired Daryl from Xtag in 07 to hire his mother Rebecaa Dunn as Xtagged CEO, Daryl then started this conspiracy with Ryion etc. #0069 [The fact is I never worked for Xtagged, so I could never have been fired. That said, I can’t wait to testify against this lunatic and to explain to a jury how crazy he really is…if he’s dumb enough to put me on the stand.]
Jason Webb: Xtag patent/corps attorney he told all Xtagged owners he could only sell securities #0070 [Jason was found to have acted improperly by convincing certain fraud victims that Xtagged was a solid investment. His law firm faced disciplinary action by the Utah Department of Securities for the actions of Webb, which violated securities law.]
Saeed Kermani: started Single & Dating/patent 06 & 07 #0071 [Andy’s old boss at Comcast]
Mehraz Sheikhi: was paid back $10,000 just as Ryion B. was paid back $2,500 through Logan Laws #0072 [One of Andy’s fraud victims]
Logan Laws: Logan & Ryion teamed up for $5,000 & after Logan begged Andy to separate them due to Ryion Butcher being a A—hole these are Logan’s words about Ryion to Shar Jenkins & texts #0073 [One of Andy’s fraud victims, eager to testify against Andy]
Steve Klemark: Wisertechnology.com CIO I have attached his Denver Halo P.D ID Steve Bought Xtagged in 2009 & he made Ryion B. $5,000 money order… Steve stop going with Andy to court in Utah because Steve said prosecutor J.C.Y. & Mr. Holje was conspiring. Steve made two videos… #0074 [Low-level IT guy at the Denver PD who supposedly purchased Xtagged for $24 Million dollars.]
Shar Jenkins: not only paid Logan Laws $2,500 money order he offered everybody buy-outs just as Steve K. did and Allen Brady and many more… #0075 [One of Andy’s brainless minions who pretends to be some sort of marketing guru.]
Kirk Yuhnke: Fox13 now Denver Fox31 my first prime time interview for my invention of car tags I offered Kirk Yuhnke 1% ownership of system Sindy was witness look at attachment file D.I.D #0076 [A Fox News reporter who doesn’t know nor care who Andy Esquivel is.]
Sindy Manzano: worked for Xtagged 06 to present in 05 the Deseret News did story on Sindy Manzano D.I.D file #0077 [Andy’s live-in girlfriend and mother of three of Andy’s six illegitimate children. She lives on welfare because she claims she can’t work due to this blog.]
Trevor Riley: Xtagged Inc Bank manager and helper his email FB attachments are to his attorney #0078 [A random bank clerk who Andy pretends has something to do with this case.]
Allen Brady: Wisertechnology.com CEO I think Allen has told you plenty and gave you his paper work Allen and his family attempted many time to buy-out the plaintiffs they just attacked Allen and his mother… #0079 [Andy’s mindless puppet who is illiterate and an admitted drug addict.]
John Steer: He was second victim at hero’s computers 09 in Bountiful, John can verify conspiracy John also made up paperwork for Ryion Butcher & Taylor he was second in command at Xtagged #0080 [Andy’s cousin and accomplice in most of Andy’s fraudulent schemes.]
Jake House: ran our Bountiful Sushi shop with John Steer Jake is co-owner of Xtag & has exact paperwork as Ryion Butcher and Jake has made video testimony online against Ut plaintiffs #0081 [Another random co-conspirator of Andy’s.]
Jeff Parker: My first partner we bought first system stickers together Jeff has exact paper as Ryion and was at trial Feb, 26, 2013 #0082 [A random guy Andy found to support him at court because everybody else had finally figured out Andy was a fraud.]
Daris Garner: My third partner 06 after Jeff Parker we all worked for Saeed K. at Comcast, Daris has the same paperwork as Ryion B. and was at pretrial Holje would not speak to Daris nor Albright… #0083 [Another Xtagged fraud victim.]
Andre Rawka: John Steer gave Andre 1% ownership free for all the media Dre brought to Xtagged and yes it was the same paperwork as Ryion’s. Dre is now a climbing star in Utah #0084 [Some local rapper who Andy convinced to endorse his various scams for a price.]
Zachary Edwards: John Steer gave 1% ownership to Zac same reason as Dre above Zac can also verify conspiracy attacks on Xtagged.com, Wiser e-cig, Wisertechnology.com, Karmacause.com etc. #0085 [Another Xtagged scam victim.]
Taylor Jones: John Steer gave ownership to Taylor from our Sushi shop in Utah yep same paperwork as plaintiffs. Taylor then brought our attention to Jason Cowdin for Xtagged real estate app, #0086 [Another Xtagged scam victim.]
Jason Cowdin: Taylor Jones got ownership for Jason C. from John Steer & I yep John gave Jason same paperwork as plaintiffs. Jason C. was responsible for big VC meeting one with his mentor that stated “Andy is not about money” then second meeting with Social Sam people. #0087 [Another Xtagged scam victim.]
Brain Davis: Mel & Brian 3% ownership of Xtagged Brian’s with Bountiful Brian Davis paperwork. #0088 [A real-estate investor from Ogden who refused to deal with Andy because Andy was never able to provide evidence that he was a legitimate.]
Chue Berriel: of CEA Property’s Investments llc co-OWNER of Xtagged since 2008 Daryl & Ryion tried to manipulate Chue by contacting her son Edward Gonzales as court has been in progress look at Chue’s statement on LinkedIn #0089 [Andy’s aunt who was scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars. Andy spoofed her identity on LinkedIn to pretend that she wasn’t on the verge of turning him into the police.]
Ladd Quayle: plaintiff Kyle Cluff gave ownership to Ladd Q. you have copy of Kyle’s email to Andy telling Andy to give Ladd ownership of Xtagged here’s Ladd’s latest email April 8 2013 below #0090 [One of Andy’s victims who is eager to testify against him at trial.]
Professor John Richards of B.Y.U: he would not meet until our paperwork & no scam was confirmed Ladd has all emails from Steve klemark because Steve Bought Xtagged Dec of 2009… #0091 [Met with Andy once and saw through his garbage within minutes and refused to meet with him ever again.]
Rebecca Dunn: Xtagged.com C.E.O 2008-2011 I have provided seven emails dating 01-25-08 to 03-02-08 that proves all you have copies of our Xtagged CEO Final warning letter. #0092 [Andy conned Rebecca into thinking she was CEO of his various scams. She eventually realized that Andy was a fraud and turned over piles of evidence against Andy to the courts. She will not be at trial.]
Andrew Couch of Bump.com: #0093 Andrew told all Xtagged workers “We are going to put Andy in prison no matter what” Andrew conspired with Daryl A. & Ryion B. to smear/slander Xtagged and then re-filed patent in May of 2010, Andrew’s & Andy’s 2007 [Principal at Bump.com who has been harassed by Andy for years. Has no interest in Andy or this case.]
Jonathan King: ex-FBI agent I meet with in 2009 plaintiff Kyle Cuff arrange meeting I told him about The smear/slander conspiracy back in 2009 and I gave him 40% ownership of Xtagged… #0094 [iSafe executive who knows better than most how much of a fraud Andy is. The company came very close to suing Andy Esquivel for compromising their name by claiming that his scam was endorsed by them.
Final witness Leonard Martinez & his assistant: Allen Brady and I gave them $2,575.00 in 2010 to pay Plaintiff Chris E… Leonard can also confirm smear/slander conspiracy 2010 through 2013 #0095 [Leonard Martinez dumped Andy Esquivel as a client years ago because he realized that Andy was not only a fraud, but also crazy. Leonard was the first of Andy’s string of lawyers to abandon Andy as a client in disgust.]
Just in case there was any doubt left in the world that pathological lying sociopath and convicted felon Andy Esquivel is completely insane, here’s a post from one of Andy’s blogs to dispel all doubt.
Andy pitched how important a car plates network was for future “Driverless Cars” at CES show 2007. Allen Brady “How would you call a Driverless Taxi, on your smartphone “Just take a pic of the Taxi’s plate number & it will meet you at a safe pick-up area like The Long Rangers Horse” Xtagged system is worth Billions…
Now there are several obvious problems with Andy’s delusion. First of all, Andy never spoke at CES in 2007. In fact, I doubt he could even afford to go. If he did manage to scrape up enough money to go to Vegas that year and tried to talk to someone about “driverless cars”, he’d have been laughed out of the building. Second, there is no “Xtagged system”. Third, the idea of hailing a taxi by scanning it’s license plate before it arrives is ludicrous and not very well conceived. It’s the kind of thing only a drug addict like Andy Esquivel could dream up. Finally, “Lone Ranger” is spelled with an “E” not a “G” as in Andy’s post. The ranger was alone, not long like a pipe.
Andy is still clinging to the delusion that his imaginary company is somehow worth “Billions”, which is a fantasy he will likely still be clinging to when he’s shipped off to prison for securities fraud later this summer. The only question is whether Andy will try to impress the jury with his long list of imaginary inventions or whether he’ll go to jail quietly without so much as a whimper.
Recently Andy Esquivel posted the following image on one of his blogs and bragged that he finally paid his ex child support as ordered by the court. Here’s what Andy wrote:
Amount edited to save Denise Bartlett the shame:'( I couldn’t pay child support in Denver to force Judge to hear my case of Slander, Extortion, Conspiracy etc. & Daryl 04-03-2013 the Co. Judge noted it all:)x BUSTED;)x I am on my way to see twins this week after 5 years, Denise Bartlett kept me from the twins for the amount on this money order, NOT:)x Denise did it to conspire with Daryl’s Xtagged Smear/Slander campaign:'(
That was last week, and the Utah Office of Recovery Services finally got the money and we just got the details about the amount sent….it was FIFTY BUCKS!!! ($50). Now, some of you will recall that the Judge in Andy’s child support case ordered Andy to pay $320 per month in support, plus $50 per month in back payments to make up for the $320 per month he was supposed to be paying since November 2011, all of which is ON TOP of the $20,000 (plus interest) he still owes Utah ORS. That means at MINIMUM Andy’s first child support payment should have been for $370. If we simplify Andy’s support obligations to $10 per month, that means Andy just paid five days worth of support for two kids that he hasn’t paid a dime in child support for in the last TEN YEARS!!!
Andy keeps saying that the Judge in his child support case “noted” slander and extortion, but the truth is she did nothing of the sort. What she did do was tell Andy “You can’t afford the luxury of being a stay at home father” and told him to get off his lazy butt and get a job. She also noted the fact that Sindy Monzano, Andy’s live-in girlfriend and mother of three of his six illegitimate children, doesn’t have a job either. Her EXCUSE was that this blog is keeping her out of work, but last time I checked McDonalds doesn’t check social media when making hiring decisions.
The bottom line is that Andy Esquivel is a complete loser and his girlfriend is not much better. Both are living on public assistance with no intention of even looking for productive work while they continue to have babies as if they were millionaires. Normal people have jobs and don’t have kids until they can afford them. Andy clearly is not only not normal, he’s just plain lazy…as if being a convicted felon and a con-artist wasn’t bad enough.
Today Andy Esquivel posted the clearest evidence to date that he is either strung out on drugs or that he needs to be committed to a mental institution immediately. This 5 minute video posted on Youtube clearly illustrates the state of Andy’s mind and will immediately convince anybody watching that Andy is not only a fraud, but probably shouldn’t be on the outside of a padded cell.
The premise of this video is that Wiser Technology, Andy’s fake company with no employees, no office, no revenue, no capital, and no customers is somehow the world’s center of innovation and were it not for the interference of Andy’s fraud victims and the Utah justice system, Andy’s imaginary inventions could have saved lives at the Boston Marathon.
What inventions you ask? Well in this video alone, Andy claims to have invented an app that reminds you at regular intervals that today might end badly (this is not a joke – watch the video). In another portion of the video, Andy claims to be the source of the idiotic idea of training homeless animals (he specifically mentions ‘cats’) to be bomb-sniffing homeless animals.
It is clear from the content and tone of this video that Andy Esquivel has completely lost his mind. The timing couldn’t be worse for this onset of sudden and complete psychosis, as Andy’s final pre-trial hearing is scheduled for May 7th. Andy needs to detox before then so he can cope with the state’s motion to compel discovery.
In other news, Andy recently posted a cashiers check on his Diigo blog that he claims is a child support payment (the amount is obscured to avoid a more thorough inspection). Unfortunately for Andy, neither the Utah Office of Recovery Services nor the Colorado Department of Child Support Enforcement received any such payment, so Andy is still not in compliance with a recent court order that he begin paying $370 per month immediately.
Well not really, but in the following email [PDF] from Andy Esquivel to his e-cigarette supplier in China, Andy CLAIMS to have sold Wiser technology to some people with “lots of money” and tries to convince his supplier to reduce the size of his order because the $4,000 he managed to steal and Western Union to China was all he would be able to send. Andy’s supplier responds with a follow-up email [PDF] stating that they will not send any more e-cigarettes until Andy wires the balance owed.
William I sold Wiser technology I am under contract and I cannot talk about it, until my attorney says it’s ok. And the new owners have lots of money you don’t want to lose this account its big just send the difference in e-cigs send half of both batteries any color, NO mint! if you want they don’t care they want to carry both anyway William and they will order from you they are just spooked about giving more cash money. I will make you a deal you send 230 and I personally will western union the rest of money just as I did before with $4.000 I told you in email that they told me not to western union the money and I did anyway of my own personal money.
All of this is an obvious scam. If Andy had really sold Wiser technology (which didn’t legally exist at the time) to a group of people with lots of money’ then why was he having such a hard time coming up with the rest of the cash for the e-cigarettes he ordered…which were the company’s only product? What did Andy do with the money from the supposed sale? If he sold his company, then why didn’t he have enough money to pay his ex for back child support (I’ve already sent a copy of this email to ORS)? Why couldn’t he pay the scammed Utah investors back?
The bottom line is, Andy Esquivel is a very talented liar. It takes a lot of guts to spout nonsense that is so utterly unbelievable and to be able to keep a straight face so that people actually wonder if there’s a shred of truth in what you are saying.
Pathalogical lying sociopath and convicted felon Andy Esquivel gave us all another reason to peg him as the dumbest human being alive today by sending out a hilarious email in which he basically thumbed his nose at the Utah court system and openly refused to comply with an order to fully comply with the prosecution’s mutual discovery motion. In the email, Andy basically claims that although the “11 owners” of the Xtagged scam have evidence which will be presenting at trial, he won’t hand it over to Davis County Prosecutor Nathan Lyons because “they don’t trust you guys.”
Earth to Andy – This is a criminal trial and you’ve been ordered by the court to hand over all evidence to the prosecutor. Holding out a few slips of paper because you claim your supporters “don’t trust” the court is basically contempt. Not only could you be cited and fined for withholding evidence, but you could actually find yourself in jail prematurely simply for refusing to comply with Judge Connors’ order. Furthermore, any evidence which you fail to hand over to the prosecution will not be admissible at trial, but you probably already knew that right?
Andy goes on to accuse Davis County of “racism” (big surprise) and claims he’s going to ask the judge to move the trial to another venue because everyone in Utah is so mean to him. Here’s a copy of the full email:
From: “Karma Cause” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Apr 2, 2013 11:25 AM
Subject: Allen delivers my evidence 03/21/13 one year after…
To: “Deputy Attorney”, “Utah Investigator”, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “John Steer” <email@example.com>, “shar” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Jobita B” <email@example.com>, “chue berriel” , “j_park32” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Daris Garner” <email@example.com>, “Talor” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “saeed” <Abcaisauc@yahoo.com>, “Chris E. 1” , “MOM2” , “beck”
Cc: “Digital I-D filed” <email@example.com>, “leo” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Steve K” <email@example.com>, “Adam Platt” , “shar” <firstname.lastname@example.org>To: Mr. Lyon & Xtagged owners.
Allen Brady told me that he delivered my bundle of evidence Xtagged, Inc. papers etc.03/21/2013 exactly one year after the plaintiffs committed massive perjury on the stand.http://youtu.be/Hgxf10J-Vo0 <<<—– Video evidence of plaintiffs committing witness tampering.I have attached attorney Albrights text lie & the 2009 $2,500 cashiers check to Ryion Butcher that was given to Logan Laws to give to Ryion because Ryion was combative and wanted to fight because he was to be bought out by a black guy Shar Jenkins (Ryion is extreme racist witness: Jeff Nicklaus he went to school with Ryion) that’s why white Steve Klemark from the Denver PD Halo project I attached his ID, well Steve Klemark made $5,000 money order for Ryion Butcher Oct of 2009 and Ryion Butcher wrote back to Steve Klemark:Look at this email from Ryion Butcher 1% owner of Xtagged I was going to post one from Chis E. my attorney ask me not to. Only Media
———- message ——————-
From: ryion butcher <email@example.com>
Date: XXX at 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: XXX!
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: email@example.com, dale <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Private until court!!! XXX!
Look below how Ryion signs off!
1% Owner XTagged –
Entitled to 1% of all dividends and profits
Please keep in mind Mr. Lyon that the evidence bundle I gave you does not have evidence from all 11 other Xtagged owners until trial they don’t trust you guys because of Holje & Albrights lies but they will be at trial with videos.
Steve Klemark bought Xtagged.com in 2009 and Holje nor Albright ever contacted Steve, Rebecca Dunn Xtagged CEO 2009-2011 she has never been contacted.
I am going to request new pretrial date asap now that you have seen 2008 Xtagged, Inc paperwork all legit and proof of perjury & witness tampering on behalf of the plaintiffs & Daryl Acumen. I believe if this case is not dropped asap I can asked the judge to move this trial to another court based on my evidence of extreme prejudice.
Oh here’s the link that proves extortion by Ryion & Kyle: http://www.karmacause.info/John_Richards-AngelList.phpHave a great day Andy Esquivelhttp://wisertechnology.com/Home_Page.phphttp://www.karmacause.info/https://www.diigo.com/user/xtagged(Key media bcc)WWW.KARMACAUSE.INFO
Andres Esquivel KarmaCause CEO:
Sent with my Xraza-phone
There are so many ways we can make fun of Andy after he sends out emails like this one: Whyis it that none of these “Key media” personalities who are always “bcc” on all of Andy’s emails ever show up for any of his
hearings? Why is it that nobody’s ever seen this mythical “Xraza-phone” that Andy claims to use to send these emails and if there is a such thing as an “Xraza-phone”, then why did he lie to Judge Connors and tell the court he “don’t carry no phone”? Why haven’t we hard from Steve Klemark in ages except through fake Linked-In profiles and secondary references from Andy? Is the Denver Police Department really ok with Andy showing off scanned copies of Steve’s security badge to promote his own criminal activity?
In other news, Andy has a hearing tomorrow at 3pm with the Jefferson County Court in which he needs to explain why he has failed to comply with a lawful order to pay child support. As I write this, Andy owes over $20,000 in back child support for the first two of his six children and hasn’t made an effort to find a job so that he can pay the amounts which he continues to owe monthly. Andy asked for tomorrow’s hearing to buy himself more time since he has no intention of seeking work, but he has no grounds on which to argue for a reduced payment or a reduction in the amount he already owes. IN fact, Andy’s child support liability was based on minimum wage employment specifically because the court was unable to verify ANY kind of legitimate employment for Andy in the last ten years. Andy’s continuous threats of legal action and “jail” made repeatedly to members of the Colorado Child Support Enforcement office which is handling this case have not deterred the state’s attorneys or impressed the judge. For an overview of the child support case proceeding against Andy, click here [PDF].
Andy Esquivel is scheduled to appear in court for a child support hearing on Wednesday. The court will try to determine how a guy who claims to have invented everything from inflatable car covers, blue-tooth enabled electronic cigarettes, numerous pornographic mobile phone apps, alcoholic energy drinks, Internet DNA, and tools to prevent mass shootings in shopping malls can’e afford to pay child support for his first two kids. Andy, who will be representing himself because eh can’t afford an attorney, will attempt to persuade the court that he should be let off the hook because he gave the $5,000 he conned out of Ryion Butcher to his ex once in an effort to convince her he was now a wealthy man. That argument would probably carry a little weight, except for the fact that the Colorado Department of Child Support Enforcement has been following the fraud trial here in Utah closely and is fully aware that Andy is a criminal.
Andy has been preparing for this hearing by calling the Colorado department of Child Support Enforcement on a daily basis threatening to sue the department and send everybody who works there to prison (sound familiar)? The calls got so disruptive that the department actually went to the trouble of having Andy’s calls routed to a special answering service so that nobody would have to talk to him unless there was some sort of “medical emergency”.
Currently Andy owes around $20,000 in back child support – and counting. It’s kind-of pathetic that a guy who claims to be such a brilliant inventor can’t even come up with a few hundred dollars a month to support his own children, but I guess you can’t expect a sociopath to get a job and pay his bills.
Of all of Andy Esquivel’s fake inventions, this one has to be the most pathetic! It’s a bicycle helmet that Andy bought from Walmart, photographed, added a sticker to with a cheap photo editor, and then tried to pass off as a serious invention that he claims to be donating to a dead child in Colorado…sick! Here’s the product description in Andy’s own words.
There are two Buttons on the helmet: (1) MY & (2) SUNSHINE. As the child pushes the buttons together, the lock mechanism that holds the helmet to the bike seat releases. Both buttons must be pushed at the same time. When pushed correctly, a tune to ‘You are my sunshine’ plays as the child is putting on the helmet . A built in sensor then recognizes that the helmet is in place on the head of the child and turns the music off! This was developed for and will be donated to Karma Cause Erica Forney Foundation!
Using the death of a child to pump up your own scams is disgusting. Doing so in this cheap a fashion is just plain wrong. Andy Esquivel should go to jail for this disgrace alone, but the jury likely won’t hear the story because Andy will be too ashamed to share.
Andy Esquivel’s fake “Wiser No Phone Zone” app to debut at trial on June 12th! Andy has stated in recent blog posts that:
“The men connected to 2008-2013 conspiracy will be charged with drivers deaths for the last three years Wiser N.P.Z app would have saved lives.”
It’ll be exciting to hear Andy’s testimony about this fake app, which Andy claims that he donated to a deceased child in Colorado, in court on June 12th. I’m sure the jury will be impressed. If Andy can convince the jurors that all these marvelous, life changing inventions could have come to market and saved lives were it not for the “evil Xtagged conspiracy” and the “false charges” against him, then he might have a chance at securing a not guilty verdict. At the very least it will make for a hugely entertaining trial!
I’ve attached a screen shot of Andy’s fake app to this blog post. If you look closely you can tell the image is doctored with a cheap photo editor and isn’t really an image taken form a phone. If you search the app store, you’ll further discover that no such app exists either on Android or iOS. in fact, “Wiser Technology’ doesn’t even have a developer license for either platform.
Personally i think it’s sick for a con-artist to leverage the deaths of innocent people to pump up his own scams, but that’s just me. What do you think?
The trouble with pathological liars is that they can never keep their lies straight. Case -in-point is Andy Esquivel’s ridiculous claim that I once worked for him at Xtagged. Andy has repeated this story over and over again ad-nauseam and I’ve repeatedly refuted the story by pointing out that I was working for Omniture at the time and the chances of me leaving a lucrative career at a company on the verge of a successful IPO to join a con-artist at a fictitious company that owned a website that generated only a tiny fraction of the traffic I was driving on my own entertainment website were exactly zero! Andy claims that my supposedly being fired from his scam explains why I’m so determined to see him brought to justice for his crimes.
The latest installment in this gag is the following post on Andy’s Diigo blog. I’ve atatched a screen capture to this blog because I’m sure Andy will delete the post once he realizes how stupid it sounds.
Daryl Acumen was fired from Xtagged 2006 and tried to come back but Allen Brady told him NO in 2007 at Xtagged club PlayGround. Daryl then started Xtagged smear/slander campaign which excelled big time in 2009 because of Bump.
Andrew Phipps filed patent May of 2010 after he was convinced Xtagged conspiracy was sending Andy to prison falsely! Andy has phone call recorded with Andrew Couch 2008-2009 Andrew says “Andy if you are not going to join with us give me your address so I can send you cease & desist order because we already filed patent before you” Liar Liar Liar…
Even though every word of this post by Andy is a lie, my favorite part is the first sentence: “Daryl Acumen was fired from Xtagged 2006 and tried to come back but Allen Brady told him NO in 2007…” Now, never-mind the fact that “Xtagged.com” wasn’t even registered as a domain name until October 26th of 2007, the fact is even if I was dumb enough to accept a ‘job’ from a convicted felon like Andy Esquivel in 2006 it would have been impossible because I didn’t even MEET Andy Esquivel until the Winter of 2007!
In mid 2007 Andy Esquivel stole a banner from my website to promote a nightclub in an effort to get free drinks from the owner. The owner asked me to talk to Andy to find out if he was legitimate later that year. I finally met Andy in November 2007 and by late January 2008 I was beginning to realize he was actually a scam. I have photographic proof to substantiate my timelines, including a photo of my license plate taken January 27th, 2008 at Andy’s request, but I’ll save them to embarrass Andy with in the event I’m called to testify at his fraud trial in June. The entire scope of my interactions with Andy Esquivel and his Xtagged Scam, prior to his offer to buy PartyUtah.com from me for $150,000 in 2009, was the three months from late November 2007 until February 2008. It took me a little over two months to figure out that Andy Esquivel was a con-artist and his Xtagged website was a scam, but it wasn’t until 2010 that I would learn the full extent of his criminal activity and be inspired to help bring him to justice. It’s a shame the real owners of the now defunct “Club Playground” aren’t around to testify to Andy’s attempts to defraud them, but I suppose three felony counts of securities fraud will have to suffice for now.
Under the new YouTube profile “UtahVenger” (which must be some kind of super-hero alter-ego or something), Andy has released a “psychedelic” new music video. The video starts off with Andy going over the evidence he’s compiled to comply with the March 26th discovery deadline in his securities fraud case. He talks about Rebecca Dunn’s stack of evidence, and then mentions a man named Brian Davis, who Andy admits he tried to scam out of $100,000! Next Andy cuts over to a scene where he’s driving to Farmington Utah to deliver a stack of papers to his former attorney and then the music starts.
The camera is shaky, the music is funky, it’s altogether like something out of the 1960s. Andy spends the rest of the music video showing screen shots of his various Diigo posts, which collectively point to a vast conspiracy to endanger children by stifling Wiser Technology in it’s good and noble work to save humanity. Andy posts the following in support of this claim:
Amazing the end music is genius “Foster The People – Pumped Up Kicks [LYRICS]” Media this highlights my email to you & the authority’s that the stall tactics Albright & Hurst were engaging in kept Wiser technology ideas from saving children’s lives, I emailed some of you media the idea to prove, it was a donation to CHS! The song is warning for kids to run for now because WT has its hands cuffed or tied by Utah Davis court. This is truly Karma Cause “Desperation Breeds Creativity”
I’m actually kind of curious as to whether this “Wiser Technology can save kid’s lives” thing is part of Andy’s defense? The irony is that if Andy can convince a jury that Wiser Technology could have saved the lives of many children were it not for the Xtagged conspiracy, he might actually win enough sympathy to force a not-guilty verdict. Hopefully Andy doesn’t catch on to that fact and sticks to his “Bump.com wanted to steal Xtagged” story.
In spite of the fact that Andy Esquivel has now lost two attorneys because of his propensity for mouthing off online, our little friend from Colorado still hasn’t learned his lesson. Andy is now posting on YouTube and claiming that I’m somehow going to “prison” in connection with HIS securities fraud case. Just for fun I went ahead and called Andy out by pointing out that in fact he was the one facing fraud charges and the potential of jail time not me, to which Andy responded:
“Yeah Andy is in prison right ‘Bountiful BOY'”
Apparently, Andy has forgotten that the only reason he’s not in prison right now is that his mother bought a $10,00 bond through Surety Bail Bonds to secure his release. Because Andy has such a short memory and is getting more and more cocky about being able to walk the streets in spite of his recent incarceration and upcoming criminal trial, I thought I’d go ahead and post the details of his bail bond (which is a matter of public record) for our readers to inspect and enjoy.
As you can see from these documents obtained from the court, Andy’s mother Jobita Berriel secured the $10,000 bond for her son’s release with a down payment of $540 in cash on 7/29/11 and the promise to pay the $500 balance on 8/6/2011. Without this bonding agreement with Surety Bail Bonds, Andy Esquivel would still be in prison awaiting trial. Since Andy has no money and no job, there is no way he would have been able to come up with the money himself.
Enjoy freedom Andy! Unless you’re able to prove the existence of an Xtagged conspiracy, it might not last.
Andy has been bragging on his various scam blogs that you can call the court and order “video” of the proceeding, but (as usual) Andy is lying. No video is available of the hearing, only the audio we provide here.
The hearing went pretty much as expected: Andy kept insisting he was innocent, indicating that he probably won’t plead ‘Guilty’ until he very last minute. The judge noted Andy’s intention to represent himself, but explained that he will still be required to follow the protocols of the court, and Andy agreed. A trial date was set for June, which was the earliest they had available. The prosecution pushed a 2012 motion for reciprocal discovery which Andy still has not complied with – meaning that Andy still hasn’t provided the prosecution with his “evidence”, case overview, or a list of potential witnesses for trial. Andy tried to pin the blame on WIlliam Albright, but his former public defender was quick to point out that (a) Andy had a copy of everything he gave to his investigator and (b) the point is moot because the motion is for Andy, not Albright, and it’s Andy’s responsibility to comply. The court agreed and gave Andy a hard deadline of March 26th to hand over all evidence, testimony and witness lists to the prosecution.
“Your Honor, here’s where we’re at: He needs to comply with the motion that’s been made by the state for reciprocal discovery. Whether he’s given me anything or not is moot because he’s got it! He’s got whatever he gave me. He gave me copies if he gave me anything at all (or my investigator), so what’s before the court right now is he needs a timeframe that he will comply with the motion for reciprocal discovery.” – William Albright
The highlight of the hearing was probably when Andy tried to make a big deal of the fact that trial had been postponed. He asked the judge to tell him who had a calendar conflict and thus couldn’t make trial ‘today.’ The judge was understandably confused and explained to Andy that today was a pre-trial conference, that trial was stricken at the last pre-trial (which he missed) and that all the details were discussed in his absence…which apparently Alan Brady failed to convey. At first Andy even pretended not to be aware that trial wasn’t going to begin on the 26th, even though he’s posted such several times across the web over the last several weeks. The funniest part was when Andy started to tell the judge that he had “all [his]witnesses” present and ready to go, even though only Alan Brady and some woman described as an “older, heavy-set Latina with bad hair” were in the courtroom. Shar Jenkins, John Steer, Steve Klemark, and Ron Kelsay were all noticeably absent.
Andy has been claiming that a slew of potential witnesses (including Rebecca Dunn) will be testifying in his defense. If that’s true, then Andy has until the 26th to notify the prosecution so that the court can prepare for their testimony…otherwise they will all be forbidden from testifying and Andy’s evidence will not be permitted in court. Obviously whatever was in the shoebox Andy gave to Nathan Hurst, the public defender didn’t find it very actionable. It will be interesting to see what Andy does next.
Since Andy is now acting as his own counsel, his contact information is a matter of public record. That information as provided to the court follows:
Andres “Andy” Esquivel
990 Upham Street
Lakewood Co. 80214
In a recent email, Andy Esquivel tries to explain to his followers why he’s broke. According to Andy, it all my fault and it has nothing to do with the fact that he hasn’t bothered looking for a job in the last 10 years. He also continues to promise easy riches from a huge “lawsuit” that’s eminent, even though Andy can’t even afford an attorney to represent him in his criminal trial.
“FYI especially all of you that was helping Xtagged in 2009 we do have a multi-million $ lawsuits against Bump & scam.com we all should have been living good by now it’s because of Daryl helping bump slander Xtagged you were cheated. when you call please let us know the movie producers wants to interview all who call officer Metcalf in American Fork thx.”
As you can see, Andy is also still clinging to the fantasy that he’s the subject of an upcoming Hollywood blockbuster that will rival “The Social Network” in US ticket sales. He’s also supposedly orchestrating a huge criminal case against me in American Fork for exposing all his businesses as scams and costing Utah taxpayers billions of dollars in tax revenue.
In another part of he same email, Andy pretends to be Shar Jenkins claiming “I will be monitoring emails for Andy while he’s on a month business trip thank you all!” It funny, but when I am on business trips I monitor my own email. I guess Andy likes pretending that he’s too rich and too important to check his own messages. I wonder where And’s pretending to be?
And in other news Andy claims to have developed an iPhone app to expose corrupt lawyers like the ones who kept encouraging him to take a plea deal rather than going to trial. I have an iPhone5 and I couldn’t find any such app in the iTunes Store, but Andy provides a fake link to a non-existent page to prove that it’s actually legit. Maybe Andy will provide a screen shot of this fake app for us to share…then he can explain to the world how he can afford to develop such sophisticated software when he can’t even afford to pay child support.
Andy has released a new video introducing Jeff Parker, a former investor in the Xtagged scam who is either not smart enough to recognize the fact that Andy is about to be convicted of fraud or who simply doesn’t care. This video was shot (by Andy because apparently Ron Kelsay has given up on his documentary featuring Andy and has stopped following Andy to Utah every other week) yesterday immediately after court. It includes claims by Andy that the court refuses to tell him who asked for a delay in the trial (which is a matter of public record), and that Albright never interviewed Jeff Parker who he claims is an essential witness in his defense.
Anyway, Andy goes on to talk about Dakota Iverson, who has recently learned about these criminal proceedings from this blog and has started attending the pre-trial hearings out of curiosity. Andy attempts to dilute Dakota’s testimony that Andy ripped him off of wages at Xtreme Sushi by accusing Dakota of “stealing” his “$2,000 basketball.” I personally think that’s one of the funnier claims that Andy has made in his defense.
A $2,000 basketball Andy? Seriously? Maybe you should include that in yoru courtroom testimony…see how that impresses the judge.
I was surfing the web today and I stumbled across a series of exceptionally well made Andy Esquivel fan videos that I think you will all enjoy! In case you lose the link to this post, a permanent link to these videos is now included in the fan videos section under videos in the main navigation above.
After discovering our new Wiser Technology Scam blog, Andy Esquivel threw a lug-nut and sent the following hilarious email. Notice he send this email to William Albright’s investigator even though William Albright is no longer handling Andy’s criminal defense. Andy’s big point is that the Utah Department of Securities asked for a the trial to be rescheduled to avoid calendar conflicts with other trials. Andy takes extrudes from this a vast conspiracy theory that somehow ends in his eminent acquittal…go figure.
Re-posted here without edits (except to reduce the font size from the XX-LARGE that Andy likes to use for emphasis):
From: “Karma Cause” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Feb 23, 2013 7:22 AM
Subject: Daryl & Adam have started again…
To: “Utah Investigator” <Carl@landofhealth.com>, “MOM2” <email@example.com>, “A sweet” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Adam Platt” <email@example.com>, “Alll” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “law firm” <email@example.com>, “leo” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “shar” <email@example.com>, “John Steer” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “chue berriel” <email@example.com>, “Jobita B” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Steve K” <email@example.com>, “ron” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Brian Doubleday” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “Talor” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Daris Garner” <email@example.com>, “j_park32” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “sis2” <email@example.com>, “Jason Webb” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Jason Webb” <email@example.com>
Cc: “news 1” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “news 2” <email@example.com>, “news 3” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “news 4” <email@example.com>, “news 5” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “news 6” <email@example.com>, “adam5news” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “NBC Cal” <Tony.Kovaleski@nbcuni.com>Xtagged system is worth billions:“How would you call a self driving Taxi or Google car, punch in the plate number then it would return to your phones gps taxi area” just like the long rangers horse.
http://garythebus.blogspot.com/ <— Here they go again FYI Adam Sweet had me arrested to keep me from seeing the SEC judge ask Allen & Steve we recorded Adam Sweet lie over and over he told Allen he had never talk to him Allen goes off on Adam Sweet, Adam called us for meeting after the SEC judge I recorded it all! I have also published it all! FYI we have sent this to all our family members Allen is on speaker phone as we speak he is sending it to his family also I advise all Xtagged owners due the same immediately.Adam Sweet Lied! Adam had to have told Davis prosecutor they could not make trial.To buy more time and get trial continued!
Shar & Allen were told by Thomas Brady Adam Sweet will not be testifying as a matter of fact Thomas told Shar Adam Sweet should have never been at the pretrial.This video below Shar talks about his meeting with Utah SEC Allen Brady Thomas Brady & Adam Sweet:
Andy’s on a posting and email rampage after the creation of our new Wiser Technology Scam blog at Blogspot.com. He’s been posting replies and sending emails to supporters trying to win sympathy and make himself look less insane ahead of trial. Here’s a sample of what he’s posted and what I have replied:
AndyFebruary 23, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Your such a coward Daryl and you know this is all recorded. Leonard told us everything he knew Xtagged system was worth “millions & billions” just as you stated Daryl & Shar is witness to that, why would you state that, Allen Fired you in 2007 you had nothing coming and your mom gave you a chance to come back you told her to F–K OFF… you will go to prison for helping Andrew we all will make sure of it! Fyi Daryl’s email just got another notification!
Daryl AcumenFebruary 24, 2013 at 12:51 PM
1. Xtagged isn’t worth anything, much less “millions & billions” of dollars. What Shar Jenkins heard as I came off the elevator at your harassment trial in 2012 was the tail end of me explaining to my brother-in-law why so many of your followers were dumb enough to follow you all the way to Utah for a criminal hearing. What I said to him was “…[Andy has] convinced these brainless monkeys that if they continue to follow him around the country like a heard of infected cattle, he’s going to be acquitted of all fraud charges and that they’re all going to be worth ‘millions & billions’ of dollars.” One of your brainless monkeys happened to be standing at the elevator door as it opened and I finished my sentence and, having no brain, came to the ridiculous conclusion that I was telling someone that I thought your worthless Xtagged website was worth “millions & billions of dollars”. I have the entire conversation recorded because I took the precaution of keeping the Sony voice recorder in my pocket turned on while I walked out of the courtroom where you begged the judge for more time – just in case you violated your no-contact order and I needed to provide evidence of such to the police.
2. I never worked for Xtagged or any other such scam you’ve invented, so the idea that I was ever “fired” from one by Allen Brady is laughable! I’ve had a very lucrative career for the last few decades and I wouldn’t have accepted a job offer from a moron like you if you offered me the world as a signing bonus. What Allen Brady and I DID talk about over drinks at the Playground in 2007 was whether or not I thought you were a scam-artist. Allen was having second thoughts about working with you and expressed his doubts about your legitimacy at the back bar while I we waited for nobody to show up to some promotional event you begged me to attend. I told Allen that I wasn’t sure if you were legitimate or not, but that he should be patient with you. I said that even though I’d already determined that you were probably completely full of crap and that your little “Xtagged” venture would go nowhere because I felt sorry for Allen and I didn’t want to crush his hopes right there at the bar. Years later at the dinner table with his mother, I told him the truth.
3. My mother never asked me to join Xtagged. In fact, when I found out from my father that she’d told him I was leaving my job to join Xtagged in 2010, I laughed historically and assured him that not only wouldn’t I ever consider such a move (because I was convinced by then that you were a criminal and I love my job) but that I hadn’t even spoken to my mother in months to receive such a solicitation in the first place. The bottom line Andy is that you haven’t stolen enough money to pay my salary for one year at any start-up ever managed to invent…and that’s saying a lot because you’re a pretty good thief.
Why don’t you spend a little less time worrying about what I do for a living and a little more time looking for a job for yourself.? I hear McDonalds hires people like you – with a note from the state that says you’re not dangerous.
AndyFebruary 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Daryl your going to prison… cat got your typing fingers!
Daryl AcumenFebruary 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM
I’m not the one on trial for three felony counts of securities fraud carrying possible jail time, Andy. The likelihood that I’m going to prison for your criminal activity is exactly ZERO!!!
AndyFebruary 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Bwahahahahahahah! Its over DDDaryl your going to prison. John Steer ordered this equipment not I. Daryl Herpes Acumen stated by his mother look http://rebeccaondaryl.blogspot.com/ is so desperate he will try anything to manipulate you all just like the pic above Daryl’s wife Shirley was big METH head back in the day and a lot more… What DDDaryl does not show you is the fight that’s why my shirt is ripped in pic above. Daryl why don’t your own mother talk to you? Rebecca’s last statement:
“911 info from Rebecca Dunn herself, MR.Daryl Acumen called her CRYING: “Please mom don’t let them put me in prison, please I beg you, I’m sorry”
Rebecca: “I warned you Daryl, in the end Andrew, Ryion and Ladd would blame the nxxxxx”
John Steer can you confirm this bro! www.DarylAcumen.co
Daryl AcumenFebruary 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM
…um, yea. So anyway, let’s get some facts straight, shall we?
First of all, we have reliable testimony (from the mother of your two oldest kids no less) that YOU are the one with Herpes, Andy Esquivel. We also have it on reliable authority (USA-vs-Esquivel) that you are the one with a history of METH addiction. Your shirt is probably ripped in the picture above because you were in the midst of a cycle of domestic abuse, which is also well documented (Case#044901546 Domestic Abuse).
As for my mother, the fact is I haven’t spoken to her in years and neither have you. If you HAD spoken to my mother recently, you would know that she is in no condition to testify at your preliminary hearing on the 26th, as you assert in several of your blogs, or at your upcoming felony securities fraud trial. Every time you pretend to still be in contact with my mother, you make yourself look more and more silly – which is a hard thing to do considering you already look like a stooge. Also, my mother would never use the “N” word, even in the third person.
You’re a very entertaining soul Andy Esquivel, keep it up! I’m sure you will be the life of the party in jail.
John SteerFebruary 22, 2013 at 5:35 PM
WOW REALLY! This is John, every word out of Daryls mouth is a lie and needs to get his facts straightened up before he goes posting absurd blogs all over the internet! But dont worry, everything and everyone will be in place here very soon! Keep tryin Daryl, your effort is very hillarious! 😉
Daryl AcumenFebruary 24, 2013 at 11:45 AM
You’re the hilarious one John. You cling beyond all reasonable hope to the idea that your broke, unemployed, convicted felon of a cousin who’s under indictment for three felony counts of securities fraud (each of which carries the potential for serious jail time) will by some miraculous stroke of luck be acquitted at the last possible moment and that you and the rest of his mindless cronies will somehow become instant millionaires. In my book, that makes you an idiot.
Everything I’ve posted about Andy is backed up by reliable (usually sworn) witness testimony and/or certified public records released by a court of law. In most cases, including the one which you are responding to, I actually go to the length of posting scanned copies of the actual court documents which are the sources of my information. In the meantime, I’m accused by people like you, who among other things have been known to extort free labor from high school kids to line your own pockets with extra cash, of spreading “lies”?
Seriously? On what basis do you make that accusation?
Let’s review for a moment what constitutes a fact: A court judgement on behalf of a reputable corporation against a named defendant is a FACT!!! The judgement above contains Andy Esquivel’s name, not yours, which makes your opinion on the matter irrelevant.
When I say that Andy Esquivel is “unemployed”, I base the assertion on the FACT that the Colorado and Utah Departments of Recover Services have been unable to verify his employment in order to attach his wages for back child-support, or even verify any employment in the last ten years to estimate his liability.
When I say that Andy is broke, I base the assertion on the FACT that Andy is about to file papers with the court certifying himself “indigent” and in need of the assistance of a court appointed public defender (if he hasn’t already).
When I say that Andy Esquivel is a convicted felon, I base my assertion on the outcome of case #881000871 and #881919199 on which Andy Esquivel was convicted of felony burglary charges…and on the rest of his lengthy criminal record.
When I say (and I haven’t for some time, but let’s get this out of the way while we’re on a roll) that Andy Esquivel is a METH addict, I base the assertion on drug tests and expert testimony in federal weapons case USA-vs.-Esquivel in which Andy was found to have had significant amounts of METH in his system consistently for a period of some years.
So tell me John, on what basis do you make the ridiculous assertion that “every word out of [my] mouth is a lie?” …and please note that the words of a pathological lying sociopath don’t constitute ‘reliable’ evidence in any reasonable person’s mind, so you’ll have to think for yourself for a change.
It’s always amusing when someone as ignorant about technology as Andy Esquivel pretends to be a tech guru! It’s even more hilarious when someone of Andy’s technological ineptitude gets excited and starts showing off his ignorance to the world.
Several months ago, Andy Esquivel posted online charts showing the number of “requests” his various webstes were getting. Andy made the posts with much fanfare (devoting huge patches of real-estate on his homepage to the data) and each post was accompanied with varying proclamations to God and assorted Hail Marys and Amens. It almost broke my heart to have to reveal to Andy via a post on my Xtagged Scam thread that a “request” means nothing in the world of web analytics where I’ve made my living for the past two decades, and that every page on his various websites fired anywhere from 10 to 30 such “requests” every time a page was loaded. I explained that the tens of thousands of “requests” Andy was seeing on his various websites probably actually only translated into a few hundred real page views after bot traffic was discounted and his own views subtracted from the total.
Well, it seems Andy got the memo and has now returned bolder and wiser than before (no pun intended). Today Andy posted new numbers for his various blogs showing that in the past year, his seven most trafficked websites have generated a whopping 6,734 page views in total (combined) traffic! He even adds the annotation “WOW!!!”
Now, I’m not going to break out the ruler and try to get into a “who’s bigger” contest with a sociopath. The fact is, it doesn’t matter how much traffic Andy’s websites generate vs. mine because we’re reaching different audiences. Andy’s websites are geared towards himself, his girlfriend, Allen Brady, and the few people in this world who haven’t yet figured out he’s nuts. My websites are geared towards people who would otherwise take Andy seriously and need to be warned to stay away.
That said, I feel compelled to point out that our humble little Xtagged.co blog has generated 6,610 “real page views” this month alone…and the month isn’t even over yet. That number of course excludes 4,905 pageviews served to bots since February 1st. In other words, we’ve generated nearly as much traffic in the first two thirds of February than all of Andy Esquivel’s blogs generated in the whole of 2012 and for the first two months of 2013. In January Xtagged.co served 10,504 page views during the 5,393 visits made to the site by 1,058 unique visitors (real people). While those numbers pale in comparison to the 600k – 750k page views my old PartyUtah.com website served up every month and is nothing like the over 100,000 page views we served up on the last single day I owned the site, it’s still pretty good for a black and white blog that doesn’t advertise and for which I’ve done no promotion.
In the end, traffic doesn’t mean a whole lot without what we call in my field “key performance indicators.” The key performance indicators of this website are the number of people who find us online and come forward with additional information, evidence, or horror stories about Andy Esquivel and his various scams and the number of months Andy spends in prison because of the evidence we uncover. By those measures, this tiny little corner of the Internet is doing pretty good.
How do you measure success?
Judge Connors and the prosecutors of the Davis County 2nd District Court have finally lost their patience with securities fraud defendant Andres “Andy” Esquivel. During the pre-trial hearing February 12th, the court issued a preemptive warrant for Andy Esquivel’s arrest should he fail to appear for the pre-trial conference scheduled for February 26th. It will no longer be acceptable for Allen Brady, Andy’s brainless side-kick from Draper, to appear on Andy’s behalf.
The court denied a request by outgoing defense counsel William Albright to set a pre-trial hearing a month out. The date was set for two weeks following last Tuesday’s meeting as a signal that this trial needs to move forward and further delays will not be tolerated.
The court granted William Albright’s request to be removed from the case because he has found the pre-trial activities of Andy Esquivel to be “repugnant”. Since Andy has not yet filled out the required “proof of destitution and poverty” paperwork allowing him to even use a public defender, nobody has yet been formally assigned to replace Albright. At this moment, Andy is officially without legal counsel for the third time in the history of this case. Once the destitution paperwork is filed, we’ll post it online for the rest of you to inspect.
What I find amusing is the fact that Andy has been proclaiming for three years now that his army of high-priced corporate lawyers have consistently advised him not to post anything else online until court – yet in the last three years Andy has posted hundreds of times and emailed those involved in the case ad-nauseam in spite of his claims that this or that will be “the last post until court.” This website is in fact kept alive by the fact that Andy doesn’t know when to shut up! The library of evidence which Andy has posted against himself is amazing, and it’s cost him two different attorney’s in the last nine months. Even now Andy is posting claims that he and his illiterate co-conspirators could have prevented sites like Twitter and Apple from begin hacked, in spite of the fact that he couldn’t even prevent a hacker from taking his amateurish e-cigarette website offline for over a year. (…so much for Digital Internet DNA)
Andy claims to have an army of witnesses willing to testify on his behalf at trial, but the fact is only one person visibly still supports Andy, and that’s Allen Brady (the man who helped Andy steal $50,000 from his own mother). Andy even claims that Rebecca Dunn is scheduled to testify in court and that he’s been in contact with her – a ridiculous assertion for reasons I’m not going to post on this website. We continue to receive emails from people willing to testify against Andy and we forward them all to prosecutor in the case. The bottom line is, Andy is pretty much alone and the doors are closing in. It’s time to either plead guilty or start packing for an extended stay in Davis County. Personally I think Andy’s going to plead guilty and rip somebody else off to pay the settlement required by any plea deal to Ryion , Kyle and Chris.
…we will see.
Most of you know that Andy Esquivel is a worthless scumbag who sleeps with under-aged girls and refuses to pay child support for his children, but what you probably didn’t know is that Andy also takes advantage of high school kids to make money! Following is a first-hand account form one of Andy’s former employees who was only in high school when Andy used him for cheap labor at his Xtreme Sushi shop and never paid for his work.
The testimony you are about to read has been forwarded to Davis County prosecutors to help illustrate the lengths to which Andy Esquivel will go to further his various scams and to make a buck. John Steer, Andy’s low-life cousin, is also implicated in this scheme to defraud a young man with little experience in the ways of the world because he stood by and watched Andy extort work form this high school junior in the furtherance of Andy’s schemes.
Below is the brief testimony of Dakota Iverson of Bountiful Utah:
When I was a junior in high school there was a restaurant called Xtreme Sushi in Bountiful Utah. I was attending Bountiful High school and was in need of a job, so one day I wandered into Xtreme Sushi and applied. The person who took my application and interviewed me was a man named Andy Esquivel.
Andy gave me the application and I basically got the job on the spot – quick and simple. After a couple days Andy started ranting to me about “Xtagged”. He said it was a website worth millions and billions of dollars and that it would make us all rich. This was around the same time that Twitter was invented and it’s funny because he would always say that twitter was nothing compared to Xtagged and if they could get so popular and be worth so much money then that means Xtagged is going to be worth way more!
I went on working for Andy at Xtreme Sushi for $6.50 an hour as the time passed and passed without me getting a pay check. I think it was two months before I got my first check , and I do not recall the amount of money I was finally paid. That first amount doesn’t really matter though because after that first two months, I never did see another dollar – nothing in the next four months that I worked for him. Paychecks were not what I would call a ‘usually thing’ at all while working for Andy – in fact they did not really exist. I went on for so long with out receiving money because every day without fail Andy would talk to me about Xtagged and he would say that he was giving me 1,000 shares of stock in the company. He promised that when the site took off, I would be able to sell my stock for “millions of dollars”. This didn’t get rid of my desire and right to be paid for my labor, but I trusted Andy because everything he said seemed to be in my favor. He always seemed to care about my well being (or so I thought). I trusted in Andy because he was such a good liar.
I feel stupid for believing Andy for 6 months with out receiving almost anything. I was a kid in high school so I was very gullible. Andy saw that gullibility in me and he decided to take advantage of it.Though I did not ever complain for about not being paid, I made sure to keep track of every hour that I worked in hopes of being paid for my labor someday. After all, that is what Andy told me to do because he always promised that soon I would receive my check.One day I went to work and when I showed up at the restaurant I realized that the doors were locked and it was dark inside. A lot of thing things were missing from in the restaurant. I am not sure who removed everything, but I’m certain it was Andy. It looked like he just ran away, which I finally learned is exactly what happened. In the end he just packed up and ran away without paying me another dime and with out even saying a word.I’ve calculated that Andy owes me 89.9 hours worth of labor at $6.50 and hour, which totals up to $584.35. John Steer would be able to confirm this, because he was there while I worked all those hours. I don’t ever expect to get paid and I’ve learned my lesson about who to trust and who to avoid. Andy is definitely a person to avoid at all costs. I hope he finally gets what’s coming to him in this trial.
What kind of Christian takes advantage of young kids working their way through high school? What kind of person sits back and watches while a scam artist like Andy Esquivel extorts money from children? The answer is simple – Andy Esquivel is no Christian and John Steer is no human being. Both men are leaches and one day Karma will catch up to both of them for what they’ve done.
I’d like to thank Dakota for his courage in sharing this story. None of us likes to be conned and it’s hard to admit when it happens, but at least we can alert the world and save others from making the same mistakes. Andy Esquivel and John Steer are a collective mistake – period! Wherever they are, they should be reminded of the people they’ve hurt and the trail of lies they’ve left behind. One day soon it will catch up to both of them, and those of us who believe in justice will be there waiting and cheering.
Poor little Andy Esquivel just can’t catch a break. Just when it didn’t look like life could get any worse with a pending criminal trial, his public defender quitting his case, another pending hearing for back child support, and a sixth illegitimate child entering the world with a dad who can’t seem to find work, Andy Esquivel gets slammed with ANOTHER judgement demanding payment of $1,575.99 from NAR Inc.
The judgement is being filed in Utah as a foreign judgement from Colorado by NAR Inc. apparently for APEX Alarm equipment and services that Andy purchased and never paid for. Obviously Andy won’t be able to pay the judgement since he’s broke, unemployed, and still pretending to be CEO of a bankrupt group of imaginary technology companies. One wonders how long it will take Andy to realize he’s an adult now and that he needs to have a job in order to live. In this day and age it’s unacceptable to continue living off of your girlfriend and her food-stamps while living at home with your mother. Any real man would by now have picked up the classifieds and found himself legitimate work as a janitor someplace.
The case details can be found here:
The court has granted NAR Inc. permission to charge Andy 8% interest until the judgement is satisfied. My hunch is that when Andy finally gets our of jail and is forced to get a job as a condition of his probation, NAR Inc. will garnish his wages to recover their funds. At minimum wage, who knows how long that is going to take, but at least they’ll eventually get their money.
Andy Esquivel’s scams never cease to amaze me. Few things are as entertaining as debunking this scumbag’s ridiculous claims and revealing the extent of his psychosis.
The latest example is Andy’s claim that he’s sold the rights to the “Xtagged movie” to film producer Brian Doubleday (Producer of 1999 blockbuster ‘Instinct’, early 1990s hit television series ‘Venturing’, & 2008 documentary ‘Big River Blues’). As evidence of the current production of this eminent documentary, which Andy hints will be bigger than “The Social Network” because he claims to have retained the ‘Facebook lawyers from the film’ to represent him, Andy has been broadcasting links to a 60 second video in which he tells part of his story.
It’s an impressive video…well produced, excellent photography, etc. There’s only one problem – anybody in the Denver area with 15 minutes to burn can buy the same video from Brian Doubleday for $99! It’s actually a terrific deal…here is the text form Brian’s “Greenworks Video” website to illustrate:
The $99 Video Bio!
Video Bios are rapidly taking the place of text bio on sites such as Linkedin, Facebook, and an ever increasing number of other social media sites. With a 60 second video bio, you can easily tell everyone who you are, what you’ve accomplished, and give them a real sense of your personality as well.
Here’s how it works:
Call Brian Doublday at our studio (303-728-9574) or email email@example.com to schedule your bio shoot in our studio. Once you agree about a time to come in, he’ll talk to you about what to say, and ask you to write it out and email it to him.We’ve reserved our studio every weekday from noon until 1PM for shooting these bios. Your script will be loaded into our teleprompter (no memorization is necessary!) you’ll come in and have 15 minutes of studio time to get it done.When you walk out, you’ll have a professionally produced video bio, with your name and title (if you want) on the screen. What could be better (or more affordable at just $99) than that!
Andres “Andy” Esquivel likes to pretend that the people who have worked to bring him to justice will one day face some sort of legal retribution. His favorite claim is that once he’s found innocent of securities fraud, “the SEC” has promised to begin an investigation of the people who worked to bring criminal charges against him in the first place. The story goes that Andy met with an SEC judge after he was formally charged with fraud in Davis County and that the judge promised that as soon as the criminal case was over he would investigate the conspiracy to convict Andy. Andy sounds as if he’s really excited about these new charges, as seen in the following post:
“Wait until a real investigation happens and don’t worry a real one is coming the SEC Judge told Allen Brady Aug, 02, 2011 he would start one as soon as Davis county case is over he told Allen that…” – Andy Esquivel
As we have explained on this blog numerous times, the Utah Department of Securities officers that Andy met with indicated to him that HE will be subject to further administrative action by their agency once his criminal case concludes, not his victims. It is unknown what sorts of sanctions or penalties Andy will be subject to once the criminal case ends, but what will not be happening is some investigation of Andy’s victims or the administrators of this blog resulting in charges against us. The ‘investigation’ Andy refers to has already occurred and resulted in the criminal charges he now faces. What’s left is for the Utah Department of Securities to take their own disciplinary action outside of the criminal charges now pending.
Here are the details of the Utah Department of Securities case against Andy Esquivel and Xtagged.
Andy will no doubt continue to brag that he talked to a judge at the SEC (the Judge being Steven Eklund and the agency actually being the Utah Department of Securities, not the SEC) and that those discussions will result in another investigation that will exonerate him and implicate his victims, but this is a complete falsehood. The facts of the case are simple and are here documented for the entire world to review.
Why Andy continues to deflect blame for his criminal activity away from himself and towards the people he scammed is beyond me. A normal person would admit to their crimes, take the punishment and move on. Pathological lying sociopaths apparently can’t do that.
Here we have a pathological lying sociopath who is broke, unemployed, who lives with his mom, who doesn’t own a car, who has six kids by three different women, who gave up his parental rights to one child because he couldn’t afford to take care of him and owes over $18,000 in back child support on two, who has a felony criminal record, is on trial for felony securities fraud, and he’s pretending that somebody wants to make a ‘movie’ about his life?
Andy now claims that Carlos Mencia (whoever that is) has been cast to play him in the upcoming Xtagged movie and that somebody named Brian Doubleday has agreed to direct. You have to either be insanely stupid or stoned out of your mind to still be taking Andy Esquivel very seriously at this stage. Who wants to watch a movie about a deadbeat dad who conned a bunch of people out of their money and then got convicted of securities fraud? Even his own family thinks hes a loser. I’ll post more information about the “Xtagged Movie” as Andy makes it available. Maybe Andy is using the movie claims as the foundation for a last minute insanity plea.
In a display of brazen stupidity that is shocking even to those of us who have become used to his incredible imagination, Andy Esquivel claims to have invented technology that could have prevented the Colorado theater massacre and thus could have saved lives (…if only he weren’t on trial for securities fraud).
In his latest post, Andy claims that he, Steve Klemark (a low level IT clerk at the Denver PD) and Rebecca Dunn ( a part time substitute teacher in North Carolina) invented a technology in 2010 which could have prevented the shootings and “saved lives” in Colorado. He asserts that this technology was offered to the “the people of Columbine” but that the victims of hsi fraudulent activity in Utah somehow foiled the technology transfer. He even asserts incredibly that the efforts of his fraud victims to enlist the help of the Utah justice system reflects some kind of “negligence” on their part. The actual quote as posted on Wiser technology’s homepage follows with colors and formatting intact.
“We were to post update 07-19 weekend on the 1 year anniversary of the fake security charges filed in Utah! Do to the Colorado theater massacre we had to postpone it because of the anger at Wiser Technology against Daryl Acumen, Ryion Butcher & all co-conspirators since 2009. Please let me briefly explain Wiser team, Steve Klemark, Rebecca Dunn & I in 2010 had invented new technology that we were to donate to the people of Columbine high school and this technology would have saved lives if it were not for the extreme negligence of Daryl Acumen & co-conspirators smear/slander campaign…”
If you ignore the horrible spelling and even worse grammar, basically what Andy is trying to do is pretend that the Colorado theater shooting had something to do with his recent silence regarding the securities fraud case against him. That silence is of course really due to the fact that Andy has been trying desperately to convince his own family not to press criminal charges of their own against him for the money he conned from several of them. It is typical of Andy to cling onto a tragedy of any kind and to try to use the emotional nature of the event to his own advantage, but this latest episode is absolutely DISGUSTING!!!
The official pre-trial hearing transcript is now available for review here [PDF]. For your convenience, the full text of the March 21st hearing is also available below:
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT-FARMINGTON
OF DAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
STATE OF UTAH,
) Case No. 111701135 FS
Remanded Preliminary Hearing
Electronically Recorded on
March 21, 2012
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. ALLPHIN
Second District Court Judge
For the State:
For the Defendant:
Transcribed by: Wendy Haws, CCT
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by Administrative Office of the Courts Time: 2012.07.21 17:37:29 -06’00’ Reason: Document: Filed with the Utah State Courts Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
1771 South California Avenue
Provo, Utah 84606
Telephone: (801) 377-2927
Nathan D. Lyon
DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
800 West State Street
P.O. Box 618
Farmington, Utah 84025
Michael T. Holje
BROWN, BRADSHAW & MOFFAT
10 West Broadway
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
WITNESS: KYLE CLUFF PAGE
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 5
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOLJE 17
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 35
WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER PAUL ENGELBRECHT
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 38
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOLJE 46
WITNESS: RYION BUTCHER
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 55
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOLJE 64
WITNESS: ADAM SWEET
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 78
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOLJE 82
WITNESS: THOMAS BRADY
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: MR. LYON 86
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOLJE 102
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
Two Checks to X-Tagged
Copy of Contract
Convertible Promissory Note
Stock Certificates Plus Other Documents
(Electronically recorded on March 21, 2012)
COURT CLERK: No. 24, State of Utah vs. Andres Esquivel
case No. 111701135, set for remanded preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: Counsel, are you ready?
MR. LYON: Yes, your Honor.
MR. HOLJE: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Call your witness.
MR. HOLJE: Your Honor, before we get started, the
State would like to invoke the exclusionary rule.
THE COURT: Counsel on either side, if you have
witnesses other than the officer that is going to assist
Counsel, any potential witnesses, we’d ask them to step aside,
please not talk about the case amongst themselves either before
or after their testimony.
MR. LYON: Your Honor, I do –-I have –
THE COURT: You all know who you’ve got. So if you
would just direct them, I’d appreciate it.
MR. LYON: Just for the record, I’ve got three victims
that will be present, my lead investigator and then our expert,
that I think are entitled to stay under the rule.
MR. HOLJE: Your Honor, with –-I don’t have any
witnesses to call today. For the Court’s information –Justin,
if you want to stand up –-your Honor, if I could
introduce Justin Pratt. He’s a new member of the bar. He’s
my mentee under the Bar’s new lawyer mentoring program –
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. HOLJE: –-and he’s required to observe, so –
THE COURT: You can have him come up and sit behind
you there if you’d like.
MR. HOLJE: That would be great. Thank you, your
Honor. Other than that, Steve Burton is a member of the Bar.
He works with Justin Pratt. I don’t have any –
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HOLJE: –-issue with him being here either.
THE COURT: Let’s go ahead, then, Mr. Lyon.
MR. LYON: Okay. Your Honor, just as a very brief
opening statement, just to lay a little foundation for your
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LYON: –-this is a securities fraud case, and
we’re going to be hearing from three of the individuals who
invested in the company which the defendant (inaudible), which
was called “X-Tag.” We also have the Investigator Sweet, who
performed some of the investigation.
We also have Tom Brady, who is our expert, who I think
will be able to shed a little bit of light for the Court, I’m
hoping, as to the securities, and why this falls within the
parameters of the security, given that this is not what we
generally see in our normal practice; but I think we’ll proceed
with that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LYON: State calls Kyle Cluff.
THE COURT: Sir, if you’d just –
MR. LYON: Stop right there. Stop right there.
COURT CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in the case now before the Court will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Now you can please have a seat
at the witness stand. Go ahead.
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
BY MR. LYON:
Q. Mr. Cluff, could you please state your name, spelling
your last name for the record.
A. Kyle Cluff, C-l-u-f-f.
Q. Mr. Cluff, do you reside in the Davis County area?
Q. Is it Weber County?
Q. Okay, and are you employed right now?
Q. Okay, where do you work?
A. I work at McKay Dee Hospital.
Q. You’re also going to school?
A. Yeah, I’m a full-time student at Weber State.
Q. What are you studying?
A. I am a senior. I’m Athletic Therapy, and getting
ready to apply for my graduate school in Health Administration.
Q. Okay, now Mr. Cluff, have you been previously employed
at Anytime Fitness?
A. I have.
Q. Were you so employed at the Bountiful location back in
February of 2008?
A. I was.
Q. What were your responsibilities there?
A. I was a personal trainer/manager of the gym.
Q. While you were so employed, did you have an occasion
to come in contact with an individual by the name of Andres
A. I did.
Q. Okay, that’s the defendant sitting next to Mr. Holje?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you tell us when that occurred?
A. That was in February of 2008.
Q. What were the circumstances in which you came in
contact with him?
A. I came personally in contact with him under the
impression of him buying a personal training package from the
Q. Was someone –-did someone instruct you to speak with
Q. Who was that?
A. The gym manager.
Q. Tell us about the conversation you had with the
A. That I did, or that the gym manager did?
A. That you did.
Q. Well, the defendant was in the owner’s office, as
I walked in, explaining about his Internet company. He was
talking about the government giving him money for startup
costs, about his soon-to-be appearance on the Oprah Winfrey
show, how MySpace tried to buy it for 5 million but he
Q. Did he explain what his company is?
A. He did.
Q. Can you tell us what he explained to you as?
A. He said his company was an Internet company that
would keep pedophiles and rapists off of the Internet, and
keep them from coming in contact face-to-face with children
Q. Did he tell you what the name of his company was?
A. He did.
Q. What was that?
Q. Did he explain what the purpose of X-Tagged was?
A. To keep the Internet safe.
Q. Now, I recognize you said that he was going to help
keep people safe. Did he explain how that was going to work?
A. He did. He stated that X-Tagged used license plates
to verify individuals; and so, for example, if somebody was on
MySpace and they were talking to an individual, X-Tagged would
be a company that a person would take a picture touching their
license plate, and he said to me that if they touch someone
else’s license plate, that would be a felony same as if you
opened somebody’s mailbox and took their mail.
So I touch on their license plate. It identified them
as who they are. So if someone’s on MySpace talking to a –-to
a young girl, and they want to meet face-to-face, and she said,
“Are you X-Tagged?” she could then go see if he’s on X-Tagged
and if he’s verified, see what he looks like, see what his
license plate is, so when they meet face-to-face she can know
what to expect, know what car to see him driving up in, and
have him be verified.
Q. Now, was this supposed to be some sort of social
Q. At the time was he looking for investors in the
A. He didn’t specify.
Q. Had he indicated whether he had already received money
from any sources?
A. He did. He said the government gave him $2,000,000
for startup costs.
Q. For the company?
A. For the company.
Q. Did he indicate whether he was going to be going in
television promoting this?
A. He did. He said he had already appeared on the Maury
show. That he was signing autographs and his lawyer made him
stop because their paperwork wasn’t fully done, and that in six
month’s time he would be on the Oprah Winfrey show.
Q. Now, on that first occasion that you came into contact
with him, was there any offering as to investment in the
A. He told me what the stock price was.
Q. Which was what?
A. One dollar per share.
Q. Was there any minimum investment?
A. Yes, he did say you had to invest over $500. That was
the cost of the paperwork for his lawyer to process.
Q. Did he make any indication whether the company had
plans to go public?
A. He did. He did say once it went public, immediately
it would be upwards in the 30 to $40 per share, and that within
a relatively quick time it would surpass Google with their
stock, which was currently at 500 plus per share.
Q. Did he explain how the stock was going to be I guess
realizing those sorts of gains?
A. He did not.
Q. Did he indicate whether X-Tag was patented?
A. He did tell me it was patented.
Q. Did he tell you how much time was on the patent?
A. He did say it was a 20 year patent, and they had 18
Q. Had he received –-did he tell you whether he had
received any cooperation from the Utah Government Division of
A. He had stated that they are in process to link X-Tagged
with the DMV, to once again verify that they are the owner of
that –-of that car that they’re taking a picture with.
Q. Did he indicate to you whether he had received any
offers to buy the company?
A. He did. He said that MySpace offered him $5,000,000
for the company.
Q. Did he tell you whether he had accepted or declined
A. He said he declined it.
Q. Did he give a reason why?
A. He did. He said that MySpace declined it for the
purpose that they would not use it. MySpace, for example, has
multiple individuals on there that have fake profiles. So if
X-Tagged were to be invented and be used, it would take away
from their amount of people, which would take away from the
price of advertising that they would receive. So he said that
they would take it and sweep it under the rug. So he was not
going to allow that to happen.
Q. Now, tell –-give us the context in which this whole
conversation took place while you’re speaking with him.
A. I was trying to sell him personal training at the gym.
Q. Okay, and did you in fact, I guess, sign him up? Is
that how you would characterize it? Did you sell him any
personal training plans?
A. He agreed to buy a fairly big plan. He stated, though,
that his days are very busy. He’s with lawyers and in and
out of meetings. That he needed somebody to train him about
2 o’clock in the morning; and he said he would train three
times what I’m asking if that –-if we could get somebody
there. I said we could not, you know, appease that request.
Q. So this conversation with him talking about your
company is taking place at the same time that you were trying
to sell him on personal training and fitness plans?
Q. After this initial conversation did you make any
decisions as to whether to invest in X-Tag?
Q. At some point did you make a decision to invest?
A. I did.
Q. Tell us when that happened.
A. It was –-I believe it was Monday after that weekend I
gave him a call and asked if the stock was closed or open.
Q. Okay, and what was his response?
A. He told me to hold on for a second and he asked whomever
he was driving with, he said, “Is the stock closed or
open?” They said, “It’s still open,” and he said, “Yes, it’s
still open.” Then so I told him I would like to purchase some
Q. How many shares did you want to purchase?
A. I told him I had $4,000, so that would be the
equivalent of 4,000 shares.
Q. Did you in fact write out a check for $4,000 to X-Tag?
A. I did.
Q. When did that happen?
A. That was I believe in March.
Q. To whom did you give the check?
A. I gave it to his associate, John.
Q. Did you receive anything in exchange for that?
A. I received a convertible promissory note.
Q. I’m sorry, tell me when –-when all of this oc –roughly
when all of this occurred.
A. This was in March.
Q. Now, at some time after March did you decide you
wanted to invest further in X-Tag?
A. I did. Even in March I wanted to invest more, but
that’s all the money I had.
Q. Okay, and so at some point later did you in fact
A. I did. Mr. Esquivel called me I believe in May, told
me that there was a percent that had opened up and wanted to
know if I was interested in purchasing it.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I asked him how much, and he told me it was $50,000
for 1 percent.
Q. Did you in fact give him $50,000?
A. No, I told him I’m not wealthy enough for that.
Q. Okay, did you invest any further money, then?
A. I did. He texted me a few days later and said that
they discussed it, and I could have it for $20,000. So I
called him, and I said, “I don’t have that money either.”
Then he came up with a solution, saying if I could come up
with $10,000, he would then credit –-the other $10,000, he
would then finance it himself.
Q. Okay, and tell us, how would you come up with $10,000?
A. So he took my $4,000 of the shares that I bought,
and he said he would convert that to the $10,000. He paid me
$2,000 for the diet plans and the personal training that I was
emailing him over several months. Then he also –-I gave him
another check for $2,000, and he took my Chevy Cavalier, which
had a broken engine, and said if I gave him the title he would
credit that for $2,000, which totals a monetary amount of
Q. At that time did you execute a second document to
memorialize the purchase of additional shares and the agreement
that you’ve just explained?
A. I did. He took my promissory note for the shares
back, and in return gave me a document for 1 percent of the
Q. You didn’t –-did you keep a copy at all of that first
–-that first promissory note?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay, now –-now, Mr. Cluff, I’m showing you what’s
previously marked as State’s Exhibits looks like 1 and 3.
Could you tell us what these are?
A. Yeah, these are the two checks that I made out to
Q. That’s Exhibit 1.
A. Exhibit 1 is the $2,000 I gave for the 1 percent
A. And Exhibit –-is this two?
Q. No, this is just one exhibit.
A. Okay, yeah, the first one is the 4,000 shares. The
second check is the extra 2,000 I gave in the end of May, June.
Q. I’m showing you what’s been marked as Exhibit 3. Do
you recognize that?
Q. What is it.
A. It is a copy of my contract that Mr. Esquivel gave me
after I gave him the monetary money that I had just described.
Q. Is it the second promissory note you’re talking about?
Q. Pointing your attention to the very last page, there
is –-most of this is a typed contract, and on the last page
there’s some handwriting. Could you explain to us what that is
A. Yes, Mr. Esquivel wanted me to meet him at Bogie’s,
which is a nightclub, I believe it’s Clearfield. I don’t go to
nightclubs, so I told him I would meet him in the parking lot.
In the parking lot he wrote the terms of our agreement. He
said that –-he gave me $2,000 for the gym and diet. I gave
him $6,000 in cash. Then for the title of my Cavalier he gave
me another $2,000. Then on the bottom he says that he financed
the rest by him, and X-Tagged for the other $10,000.
Q. Okay, so if I’m adding this up correctly, the 2,000
were the diet gym plans, the 6,000 representing the first
4,000, plus the second 2,000, and then $2,000 for the title
to your Chevy Cavalier?
MR. LYON: State moves to admit Exhibits 1 and 3.
MR. HOLJE: No objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. I’ll receive them.
(Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3 received into evidence)
Q. BY MR. LYON: Now, at any point in time was there a
conversation about –-we understand that you invested in X-Tag.
Was there any conversation between you and the defendant about
being able to get your money back?
A. Yes. Even on the promissory note that I initially
bought with the shares, he said that if the company did not
take off as he expected it to, we could receive our money back,
plus 3 percent interest in my case, by December of 2009. So
he, in other words, said, “You’re putting it in a bank, and
with a good interest plan. You’ll get it back if it doesn’t
Did you subsequently try to get that money back?
I did multiple times.
Were you successful in doing so?
In that contract it references being able to call due
the note at –-or after December 31 , 2009. Did you try to
call due the note after that date?
I did multiple times.
Q. In your dealings and discussions with Mr. Esquivel did
he ever tell you about a judgment of $3,075.62 that he received
against him in 2003?
He did not.
Did he tell you about a judgment of $5,597.60 in 1999?
He did not.
Q. Did he tell you about a judgment against him for
He did not.
Q. Did he ever tell you whether this was a –-X-Tag was a
He did not.
MR. LYON: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel.
MR. HOLJE: Thank you.
BY MR. HOLJE:
Q. Okay, Mr. Cluff, just before I forget to ask this,
because it’s relevant to the charges in the Information, did
any of the money that you provided to Mr. Esquivel come from a
Q. Your own retirement account?
Q. Did any of this money come from equity in your home?
Q. Okay, just personal savings?
Q. Okay. All right, so is it your testimony Mr. Esquivel
told you to your face he’s the owner of X-Tag?
Q. At any point did he use the word “stock”? We’ve
talked about shares here. You’ve mentioned shares. He never
mentioned the word “stock,” though, right?
A. It was quite a long time ago. I don’t recall.
Q. Okay. Your own assumption is that you were buying
A. That’s what I was assuming, yes.
Q. Okay. All right. You told us you gave your money to
an individual named John?
A. Uh-huh, that’s correct.
Q. You didn’t give it to Mr. Esquivel, right?
A. No. Mr. Esquivel told me to give it to John. He
would be coming to the gym to pick it up.
Q. Okay, did John have a last name, that you’re aware of?
A. I believe it was John Steere, I believe.
Q. Okay, had you ever met John Steere before?
A. I haven’t.
MR. LYON: Your Honor, if I could just interject. I
believe, Counsel, you’re talking about the first instance, not
MR. HOLJE: I’m talking –MR.
LYON: Just so we’re clear on the record.
MR. HOLJE: Thank you. That’s a useful clarification.
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: The first time you gave any money to X-
Tagged, was that to an individual named John??
Q. Okay, and in return for this –-which was $4,000 at
the time, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. In return for the $4,000 he gave you what?
A. A convertible promissory note.
Q. Okay, so the initial time was a convertible promissory
note, and subsequent when extra money was added, you were given
a second convertible promissory note; is that right?
A. A 1 percent document, yeah, of ownership in the
Q. Okay. All right, so that we’re clear, I’m not trying
to trick you –
Q. –-are both documents that we’re talking about
convertible promissory notes?
To my knowledge. I’m not a legal expert.
Okay, did it say that on the top of it?
On the top of it, it says 1 percent owner of X-Tagged.
Okay, but you –-do you have a copy of that anywhere?
It’s with the Judge, I believe.
Okay. All right, thank you.
MR. HOLJE: Okay, if I may approach, Judge.
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: Does this document that we’re looking
at, marked as Exhibit 3, does it have a title to it?
What does it say?
“Convertible promissory note.”
Is this what you were given?
THE COURT: You can just leave it right there, in case
either one of you want to use it.
MR. HOLJE: Okay, thank you. Thank you, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: Your decision to give any money was
influenced by the representation of an attorney about the value
of X-Tagged shares; is that right?
A. That was for the 1 percent, yes.
Q. Okay. Tell us about that.
A. I received an email. I believe it was from–-forwarded
to me by Jason web, who worked at Advantia; and they said on
their last current valuation 1 percent of X-Tag was worth
Q. Okay, is Mr. Webb the attorney that you’re talking –A.
Yeah, that’s who I talked to initially when I got my
Q. Okay, and then it was based on that representation
that you decided to invest, right?
A. Of course.
Q. Not based on what Mr. Esquivel told you at the gym,
A. No, it was based on both.
Q. Okay, but you hadn’t given any money prior to –excuse
me, let’s clarify that. That representation was given
to you when by Mr. –A.
That was when we were in the discussions of buying the
A. Before I had given any money.
Q. Okay, thank you. Then based on some very special
arrangements that Mr. Esquivel and you made, you decided to
give him money for 1 percent, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. It’s your understanding that this was for ownership in
the company, right?
Q. Okay, do you consider yourself an owner of X-Tagged?
A. Not at all.
Q. Did you at any point consider yourself an owner of
A. I did. I tried to execute that, with no –-no
Q. Okay, what do you mean you tried to execute?
A. I would try to give ideas, ask questions. Anytime
I asked a question that was –-that the defender could –-the
defense couldn’t answer, he would use explicit language with
me, get angry with me, tell me to get a lawyer, “You’re not
going to see your money.”
Q. You worked pretty closely with Mr. Esquivel for two
years on X-Tagged business; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay, in an effort to make it profitable, right?
A. Yeah, to see some sort of return.
Q. Okay, tell us what your role was specifically.
A. I had no role, I had no title. I was just a 1 percent
Q. Okay, a 1 percent owner?
Q. Did you go to meetings with him, or –A.
I tried to set up a few meetings, but I never attended
Q. Okay, so these ideas that you’re presenting for X-Tag,
those were presented how and when?
A. I would –-for one example I met –-I got in contact
with Isafe.org, which is an Internet safety company out of
California, and I tried to set up a meeting for Mr. Esquivel
multiple times, and finally he attended. I just tried to push
the company forward. He seemed hesitant. He wanted to stay
in the same level, as if it was comfortable, and none of his
promises came to fruition. So I was trying to enable it to
Q. Okay. Okay, back to –-well, sorry, did you ever at
any point attempt to convert your convertible promissory note
into shares of stock?
A. No, I did not. The company never went public.
Q. Okay. You never at any point received a stock
Q. Your evidence of ownership in the company is solely
based on a convertible promissory note?
A. That’s correct, and his recognition, well, I was on
good terms with him.
Q. Okay. All right, in that convertible promissory
note that you signed, was there language about risks involved
None. It was all positive.
There was no language about risk?
There was no risk.
MR. HOLJE: Okay. Your Honor, if I could approach?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. HOLJE: Do you still have that up there?
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: I’m referring to State’s Exhibit 3. Is
this your signature on page 8 of that document?
Okay, did you read the document before signing it?
I did not.
You didn’t read it?
Q. Okay. Page 6 mentions representations and warranties
of the holder; is that correct?
Q. Okay. I’ll give you a second to review paragraph 18
of that document.
(Witness reading document).
Have you had an opportunity to review that?
Okay, is there anything in that paragraph that talks
about risks associated with this –-what we’re calling an
investment for purposes of today?
A. It does say “the holder is capable of evaluating the
risks and merits of this investment.”
Q. Okay, talk about based on your financial and business
Q. Okay. Does it say that you could suffer a complete
loss of your investment?
A. Not that I can see. I could be missing it, though.
Q. You may need to continue onto the next page.
A. It’s the next page? Okay. Yeah, it does mention it.
Q. Okay, Mr. Cluff, the document that you signed, doesn’t
it say that it’s a highly speculative investment and involves a
high degree of risk?
A. It does.
Q. Okay, and you signed that, right?
A. I did.
Q. Okay, and again, if you already answered this, I
apologize. You did nothing to convert the promissory note
into anything other than a promissory note?
A. I never had an opportunity nor any –-any question to
Q. Okay, no inclination or anything?
Q. Okay. You talked about some value for personal
training and dieting, right?
Q. Mr. Esquivel never actually did any personal training,
did he, at Anytime Fitness?
Q. Okay. Is it your testimony, then, that $2,000 of your
10,000 total was based on diet plans that you prepared for him?
A. It was diet plans and specific exercises that I would
email him –Q.
Okay, so –A.
–-in his preparation to be on Oprah.
Q. Okay, so based on a number of emails, you believe you
earned $2,000 from him, right?
A. I didn’t charge. He came up to me and said, “I will
give you $2,000 to go towards this 1 percent,” and I agreed.
Q. Okay, in essence a credit, right?
A. Yeah, he would credit it to the $10,000 –Q.
Credit the 2,000.
A. –-for the 1 percent.
Q. Okay, you never, say, invoiced him for $2,000 worth of
work? You never gave him a bill for –A.
No, I never, and I was doing it just to help out a
fellow employee. He came to me and said, “Since you’ve done
this, I will give you this much money.”
Q. Okay. Out of the kindness of his heart, essentially?
A. Well, I guess so.
Q. All right. With respect to the title to your Chevy
Q. –-1998 Chevy Cavalier, right?
Q. And this was in 2009, right, that this was going on?
A. In 2008.
Q. Excuse me, 2008. So the car would have been ten years
old then, right?
Q. Okay. A ten-year-old Chevy Cavalier, and you told us
the engine didn’t work; is that right?
A. Yeah, as I told Mr. Esquivel, yes.
Q. Did the engine even exist? Was there an engine –A.
It was in there, yeah, just –Q.
It didn’t work?
A. –-didn’t feel too good, yeah.
Q. Car was inoperable, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. All right, as far as the value of that car, did
you guys sit down and look it up or –A.
No, he stated that his lawyers just need collateral,
and he would give $2,000 for that title.
Q. Okay, again, a number that Mr. Esquivel just chose on
his own, right?
A. He stated it to me, and I said, “Of course.”
Q. Okay. All right, and with respect to efforts to get
your –-again, what we’ll call an “investment” for purposes of
today. With respect to getting your investment back, you told
us you tried several times?
Q. Would you elaborate on that, please.
A. In what regards?
Q. How did you try to get it back?
A. Phone calls, multiple emails. I spoke with a lawyer.
Told me to write an email stating the provision that it says
that I can receive it back by December 31 st of 2009. I wrote an
email asking just for the amount back.
Q. These are emails to who?
A. Mr. Esquivel.
Q. Okay, do you have those emails still?
A. On my account I do.
Q. Did you provide them to Mr. Sweet, the investigator in
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Okay. Take –-I’m not –-take a guess, how many times
did you –-did you try?
Between five and ten.
Okay, and they were all by email?
Did you receive responses to any of these emails?
A. I received a few saying –-you know, attacking my
religion and using explicit language towards me saying I won’t
–-I won’t see it back. Get a lawyer.
Q. Okay, and those were emails that you didn’t see fit to
present to the investigator in this case?
A. I may have presented. It was quite a long time ago.
I don’t think I was asked for them either.
Q. Haven’t you been approached by individuals requesting
to pay you back this money?
To me personally? Not to me personally.
You’ve never been approached about repayment of your–A.
I have heard rumors of them speaking to the other two
gentlemen that they wanted to buy us out; and we had given them
time frames and the amounts, and nothing ever materialized.
Okay, no personal contact from a Steve Klemark?
No, not to me.
Or an Alan Brady?
Not to me.
Or a Shar Jenkins or –A.
No, not to me. They were, according to the other two–THE
COURT: Just tell me what you know personally.
THE WITNESS: What I know personally is that they told
COURT: No, no, no.
THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: What you know.
A. Oh, no, I didn’t. They never contacted me.
Q. Okay. Didn’t you approach Mr. Esquivel in an email
one time asking for $90,000 in return?
A. I did.
Q. Okay, and that was based on your investment of $6,000
A. Yeah, that was based on multiple things. It was based
on the amount that he said he sold the company for three or
four months prior, that I had not received any payment for. So
he was asking for my buyout.
Q. Okay, and nothing in writing that you’re aware of
entitling you to $90,000 or anything?
A. With my calculation, it was my buyout. He did say
to me on the phone –-I said, “I need the money. I need to
be bought out,” and he said, “Well, I could probably get you
$90,000, you know, by tomorrow or the next day; but if you hang
onto this, it would be worth a lot more.” So that email was
referring to the conversation we had, “I’ll take the $90,000,
and you know, you can buy me out.”
Q. You mentioned that Mr. Esquivel never told you affirm
atively that X-Tag was a Utah business, right?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did he mention that it was a Wyoming business?
A. No, he did not.
Q. That it was a business incorporated in any state at
Q. Have you subsequently learned –-or I mean, in the two
years that you worked closely with him did you learn whether or
not it was incorporated in any state?
A. It was –-I didn’t –-not from his voice. No, not
from his mouth. I had assumed it was, because it’s X-Tag
Incorporated he said he invented in Utah. So that’s my
Q. Okay, but working as a certain percent owner of X-Tag,
you never looked to see whether it was in fact a real company
A. I didn’t, nor did I have the opportunity. He never
gave me any –-any ability to look over the records or the
finances or any part of that dealings.
Q. Just finally, with respect to –-let’s go back to
the very beginning when you had a conversation in the gym, in
Anytime Fitness. You’ve told us about certain representations
that were made about the Oprah Winfrey show and Google buyouts
and things of that nature. You didn’t invest right after you
heard those things, right?
A. No, it was –-that was on a Saturday. I invested on
Q. Did you in the meantime speak to an attorney?
Q. You told us before that you invested after an attorney
told you this was worth 50,000.
A. That was in regard to the 1 percent.
Q. Okay, so timewise about what, two months later; is
A. I invested in February. I think there’s a copy of my
check that I gave for the 1 percent was in the end of May.
A. Or the beginning of June.
Q. Okay, and in the meantime, between those three months
did you do any investigating on your own about X-Tagged or did
you talk to Mr. Esquivel about Oprah or any of those –A.
He would make remarks saying, for numerous reasons I
can’t remember, “It’s been postponed.” “It’s been postponed.”
There was always a reason it never –-never came to fruition.
So he continued to dangle the carrot in front of our –-in
front of my face, and I believed because I’m a –-I’m a trustworthy
person and I believed him.
Q. Okay, just relied on him, didn’t do any investigating
on your own; is that –
A. I played on the website, and it was built, and I
looked at it. I talked to his lawyer, which in fact gave me
a closure that this was a legitimate company.
Q. Okay, and you told us that you were a percent owner of
X-Tagged. At what point did you decide that you were not? You
also told us you don’t believe you’re a –A.
Oh, I don’t –-well, I don’t –-I don’t believe the
company is a legitimate company or a profitable company. I
don’t know if it’s even registered anywhere; but at the point
that I –-even if it was, the point that I thought that I was
not is when I questioned some of the things that he had been
saying about certain people buying the company, it being sold,
being jerked around side-to-side. As soon as I questioned
him, he blew up, started swearing, got angry, told me to get
Q. Okay, and just finally, Mr. Cluff, you’ve told us that
you didn’t read that convertible promissory note, so if you
don’t know the answer to this, just say so. It directs you in
very specific terms on how to request that you be –-that you
get your money back. Did you follow through with any of those
A. Like I said, my father got me in touch with his
lawyer, and he looked over the contract, and he told me it
was more than appropriate to use an email to request the
provision of the money to be returned, plus interest, within
a 30 day time frame, and I sent that.
Q. Okay, and could I direct your attention to paragraph
13 of that. Does your paragraph 13 on the State’s Exhibit 3 in
front of you say notices?
Q. Okay, and does it give some addresses there?
A. It does.
Q. Okay, addresses on where letters are to be sent to
make certain things happen?
A. It was.
Q. Okay, but you didn’t write any letters to those
A. He was no longer at that address.
Q. Okay, how do you know?
A. Because he told me he was in –-I was still on good
terms with him while he left to Colorado –Q.
A. –-and I could not find –-he would not give a new
address to contact him. So the lawyer said an email would
MR. HOLJE: All right, that’s all the questions I have
for your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lyon.
MR. LYON: Just a few followup, your Honor.
BY MR. LYON:
Q. Did the defendant ever tell you whether he was licensed
to sell securities in the State of Utah?
A. He never said.
Q. When discussing your investment with the defendant
orally, were there any discussions about risks and the risk
that you might be taking by investing in X-Tag?
A. He stated none.
Q. Okay, just so we’re clear, did he –-tell us, did he
specifically tell you there was no risk associated with X-Tag,
or tell us exactly –A.
All that he told me was that it was on the verge of
turning public and becoming, as I said, 30 to $40 immediately,
and it will go above Google, which was 500 and something, and
it was on that verge. Everything was ready. He was getting
ready to prepare for the Oprah Winfrey show. The site was up.
I looked at it. With all those things in hand, I believed it
was a legitimate –-legitimate company.
Q. Okay, and Mr. Woolsey has directed your attention to
the convertible promissory note, the paragraph and the language
that discussed the risk associated with investment.
Q. Did you have any discussions with him, with the
defendant with regard to any of the risks associated with the
A. He never mentioned any risk. It was all positive.
Q. Did the defendant ever tell you how your 4,000 –-your
initial 4,000 buy in and then your other –-your second buy in,
how that –-how that was related to the –-let me start over.
With regards to your first investment of $4,000, that was equal
to how much –-what percentage in the company?
A. He never stated. It was just 4,000 shares.
Q. Okay, he never said whether that’s a percent, half
percent, 10 percent?
Q. Did the defendant ever contact you with regards to –and
inform you that the company had been sold?
A. He had.
Q. Tell us when the first time that happened.
A. He had contacted me multiple times. Not necessary
that the company was sold, on those terms, but that he had
given part of it to different combinations of companies, and
he had stated that “You’re a millionaire. We’re all done. We
don’t have to do anymore work, you know. They’re going to take
it from here.” He did, however, on December I believe it was
2009, close to Christmas, he contacted me and said that they
sold the company in its entirety.
Q. Did they say to whom?
A. He told me it was Donald Trump that bought it.
Q. When you were first looking at investing the –-I
guess it would be the February, the springtime of 2008, did he
give you an initial date of when the company would go public?
A. When he –-when we were speaking, even when I called
him to buy the shares, he didn’t even know if –-he thought it
was public at the time, so he said it was on the verge.
Q. Now, would –-with regards to the judgments against
the defendant, would that –-had you known the defendant had
those problems with credit in the past, would that have
influenced your decision in investing in X-Tagged?
MR. LYON: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. HOLJE: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cluff, you may step down.
This witness be excused?
MR. HOLJE: As far as we’re concerned.
MR. LYON: Yeah.
THE COURT: Hearing nothing –MR.
LYON: Oh, I’m sorry, what did you say?
MR. HOLJE: I said as far as we’re concerned, that’s
MR. LYON: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: You may be excused, Mr. Cluff.
Your next witness.
MR. LYON: Okay, your Honor, the State calls Christopher
COURT CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in this case before the Court will now –in
this case now before the Court will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: (Inaudible).
THE COURT: Go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER PAUL ENGELBRECHT,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
BY MR. LYON:
Q. Please state your name for the record, spelling your
A. Yes, Christopher Paul Engelbrecht, E-n-g-e-l-b-r-e-ch-
Q. Mr. Engelbrecht, correct?
Q. Back in the fall of 2008 were you the owner of Anytime
Fitness in Bountiful?
A. I was.
Q. In the time frame of about –-during the year of 2008
did you meet the defendant?
A. I did.
Q. Tell us when you first met him.
A. Andy came into the facility on –-in February to look
at a membership.
Q. Did you have contact with him that first time he came
A. I did not.
Q. When did you meet with him?
A. I would guess it would be the second time.
Q. Tell us how the two of you met.
A. Andy came into my office to, what I assumed, talk
about a gym membership.
Q. When he comes into your office, do you initially start
talking about a gym membership?
A. The conversation was more short talk, you know,
personal, “How are you doing?” Then Andy, at that point,
had a lanyard of some sort around his neck, which then had
some digits on it, and the conversation took a turn for that.
Q. Okay, and was that lanyard dealing with X-Tagged?
A. It was.
Q. Tell us about your conversation that you had about the
A. Excuse me. Andy proceeded to explain to me that it
was a company that he had invented that is designed to give
security to the Internet, keeping pedophiles, rapists, things
of that nature off of the social sites, such as Facebook and
Q. Did he tell you what phase the company was as far as
development? Was it –A.
He at that point explained to me that they were on the
verge of going public, and that they were going to put their –at
that point have stock in the company.
Q. Did he–at any point in time during your conversation
did he –-did the conversation turn towards an investment in
A. Yes, the conversation did take that direction, and –excuse
me, but it was a conversation that dealt with, “Hurry
up, we’re about to go public; and if you’re going to invest,
you need to make a decision.”
Q. How was that communicated to you, this hurry up and
A. Each time I spoke with Andy, he would basically say,
“We’re on the verge. We’re about a week away from going public.
So right now is the best time to get in, because once it converts
over, you’ll be a millionaire.”
Q. Okay, so are you talking about subsequent conversations
you’ve had with him, too, other than this first conversation?
A. They would be, you know, as he –-he came into the gym
one other time, and yes, that’s where the conversation went as
Q. Okay, and just for right now, let’s focus on that
first conversation that you had with the defendant. When he’s
explaining the company, does he make any indication whether
individuals are interested in purchasing the company?
A. Yes, he told –-he told me that Michael Jordan was
looking at purchasing the company. He was going to be on the
Oprah Winfrey show because of it, and that he also mentioned
that it was going to be bigger than Google.
Q. Did he indicate –-did he tell you whether he was
planning on meeting with any other major –-I guess you could
say –-computer based companies?
A. What I can recollect right now is Google. Oh, wait, I
apologize, in regards to MySpace.
Q. Did he tell you whether –-what the price of X-Tag’s
stock was going to be after it went public?
A. Not a direct quote. He just continued to say it was
going to be worth millions. It’s going to be bigger than
Q. Now, on this first occasion that you meet with him, do
you make any decisions as to whether you want to invest or not?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Did you have a second –-or subsequent conversations
with the defendant?
A. Only through phone, telephone.
Q. Tell us about those conversations.
A. The last time I spoke with him before investing, he
said that they are within the next couple of days going public.
He’s not sure if I can still invest, but he will check it out,
and that at this point that I should probably just move forward
and invest, so that way –-and he’ll work something out.
Q. Did you make a decision as to whether you wanted to
invest or not?
A. Yes, at that point I –-what I had done is I called
Kyle to verify a few things, as he had spoke with his lawyer to
get some clarification; and it was at that point that I made
the decision to invest.
Q. How much did you initially invest?
Q. Now, when you spoke with the defendant about your
investment, did he talk to you about the risks associated?
A. No, it was all positive when he spoke to me.
Q. Did he –-as per your agreement and your oral agreement,
did you –-was there –-was there any decision as to
whether you could get your money back?
A. When he spoke to us, he basically made it look as
though there was nothing to be worried about. It was a win/win
situation, because verbally he had said to me that I would get
a 12 percent return on that after the given date. So it would
be no less than having money in a bank with interest.
Q. When you say “it,” under what circumstances would you
get your money back?
A. At the end of a specific period, which was the 2009
Q. Just so we’re clear, you would get that money –-your
investment back plus 12 percent. Were there –-is that even if
the company had gone public?
A. That was –-yes, that would have been –-that was the
understanding that I had, yes.
Q. Did you have any conversations with him about X-Tagged
and its affiliation with the Utah Division of Motor Vehicles?
A. Yes, I did. He had said to me that they were working
to partner with the DMV for their license plate database, and
it would be unbelievably huge. He also mentioned that he was
looking at giving them 51 percent of the company.
Q. All right, Mr. Engelbrecht, I’m showing you State’s
Exhibit 2. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is it?
A. This is the convertible promissory note that we had
done for this –-the investment of $2,000.
Q. Who signed that?
A. That was signed by my wife, Melissa.
Q. Were you present at that time?
A. I was not.
Q. Do you recognize the signature on the back there?
A. Of my wife, yes.
Q. That’s her signature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you have subsequent conversations with the defendant
regarding this note?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did you have subse –-after you executed this –-I
think it’s called a convertible promissory note –A.
Convertible promissory note.
Q. –-did you have subsequent conversations with the
defendant regarding the investment of $2,000?
A. At that point, no, I did not.
Q. Did the defendant make any indication to you whether
X-Tagged was patented?
A. Yes, he had said it was.
Q. Had the defendant disclosed to you about a judgment
in 2003 for $3,075.62?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did he discuss –-disclose to you prior to your
investment about a judgment against him in 1999 for $5,597.60?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Similarly did he disclose to you about a judgment he
received against him for $1,537.69 in 1999?
A. He did not.
Q. Did he disclose to you he was not licensed to sell
securities in Utah?
A. No, he did not.
Q. During your conversations with him about X-Tagged, did
he make any indication as to X-Tagged being a Utah company?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Had you known about the prior judgments and he was
not licensed to sell securities, would that have changed your
decision in investing in X-Tagged?
A. 100 percent.
Q. Prior to receiving that promissory note, had you
received any disclosures as to risks associated with investment
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, in the fall of 2008 do you have a conversation
with the defendant about signing any documents to convert
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Tell us about that.
A. He called me concerning doing this conversion, and he
wanted me at that point to come over to his sushi restaurant.
I told him when I got off from the gym I would. I didn’t get
off until around 10 o’clock. At that point I called him, and
he said that he had already taken care of it, signed the
documents, and everything is taken care of.
Q. Did you in fact ever receive any stock in X-Tagged?
A. I did not.
Have you tried to receive your money back?
Yes, I did.
Have you been successful in that?
No, I have not.
MR. LYON: The State moves to admit Exhibit 2.
MR. HOLJE: No objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. I’ll receive it.
(Exhibit No. 2 received into evidence)
MR. LYON: Nothing further, your Honor.
BY MR. HOLJE:
Okay, Mr. Engelbrecht, you’re a business owner, right?
I was, yes.
You were, okay. When did you sell?
November of last year.
Q. Okay. All right, so at all times that we’re talking
about here, you were a business owner, right?
Q. All right, I’m sure as a business owner you understand
the concept of risk, right?
Q. Isn’t it –-in your opinion isn’t it kind of an oxymoron
to have an investment without risk?
Your testimony was that Mr. Esquivel said there is no
risk; is that accurate, or –
Q. Okay, he affirmatively said that, or just you guys
never talked about it?
A. No, he said that in my office.
Q. That there is no risk in this?
A. Correct, he believed in karma.
Q. Okay, as a business owner did any red flags go off or
any bells and whistles in your head?
A. At that point, no, when it had to deal with a return.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. When it had to deal with a return that I would receive
at the end.
Q. Okay, so I’m not even sure I understand that, but
you –-your decision to invest was based on conversations
that talked about Oprah Winfrey and Google and things of that
nature; is that –A.
Yes, and he also mentioned the return that we would
receive at the end of the investment.
Q. How about –-you’re friends with Kyle Cluff, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay, how about the conversations you had with Kyle
Cluff and representations from his attorney?
A. What question are we asking?
Q. You relied on those before investing; is that accurate?
Q. Okay. This promissory note, convertible promissory
note, did you read it before signing it?
A. I did not.
Q. As a business owner, was that kind of the normal way
you do business or –A.
Q. What made this one different?
A. I was not there.
Q. Okay. Is your name on it?
A. My name is written in as “Chris.”
Q. Okay, that’s your name, right, Chris?
A. That is.
Q. Okay. All right. You said it was signed by your
Q. Okay. Has your wife made any efforts to get her money
back or get —-make contact with X-Tagged?
Q. Okay. Did your wife read it before signing?
A. I cannot answer that.
Q. Okay. Did you have any independent verification
from an attorney, specifically Jason Webb, about the value of
A. I did not.
Q. Did you rely on any representations from an attorney
given to your friends about the value of X-Tagged?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. You’ve been –-you were here when I questioned
Mr. Cluff, right?
Q. The –-I think the testimony was that this Jason Webb
said it would be worth $50,000; a 1 percent share was worth
Q. Was that information that was in your head at the time
A. That’s what Kyle had told me.
Q. Okay, and that attorney, to your knowledge –-I understand
you didn’t speak to him, but to your knowledge, was he
sort of saying this was a legitimate company?
Q. Subsequent to making an investment did you do any
independent investigation about whether or not X-Tagged was
incorporated in Utah or where it was incorporated or anything
Q. Okay, did you ever hear anything through the grapevine
A. Not until a month ago.
Q. Okay. You told us that you asked for your money back,
A. I did.
Q. Again, can –-can you elaborate on the efforts you
went through to get a money back?
A. In December 2009 I, one, sent an email to Andy directly
asking for it back. I received no reply; and two, I sent a
certified letter to the address on the contract, and that was
sent back as a return.
Q. Any reason why? I mean, no forwarding address, things
A. No forwarding address; and if I remember correctly,
address is no longer there, or something of that nature.
Q. Okay, so just those two things, right; an email with
no response and a letter that was unsuccessful?
Q. Okay, and what efforts did you go through after that,
or how did you get here after that point?
A. How do I –-to this point here?
A. Well, at that point, that’s when I went and visited
Q. Okay, on your initiation or were you contacted? In
other words –
A. No, it was on my initiation.
Q. Okay. Didn’t you also make a police report on this
A. No, I don’t –-I don’t recollect.
Q. You don’t recollect if you met with the Bountiful
A. At this point I can’t remember.
Q. Okay. After sending an email or sending a letter,
haven’t you been contacted by numerous individuals about
A. No, I have not.
Q. Ever in your life?
A. Not directly from them, no.
Q. Well, did anybody talk to your wife, or did anybody
talk to your friend and say, “Pass the word onto Chris,” or –A.
Yes, through friends, not through my wife.
Q. Okay, if you’d explain that, please.
A. From what I understood, they would give a payment to
us, but there was no –-that I understood, there was no leading
time. There was nothing that took place in order for that to
Q. Okay, so you personally have never been contacted by a
A. I was recently contacted, I think it was by Steve, as
of about two weeks ago.
A. But it wasn’t concerning payment. It was to sit down
and go over information that he said I needed to know.
Q. Okay, was that the first contact you’d ever had with
Q. Okay, what about an Alan Brady?
Q. No contact from him; or a Shar Jenkins?
A. Actually there were emails –-I apologize, there were
emails just recently sent as of –-just as recent. I apologize,
my mind was thinking in the past, but there were emails sent
speaking with apparently his lawyer for me to try and gain
payment back. They said that I would be paid back.
There was a picture of a check with my name on it
for $2,000. There were text messages at that point that were
–-or I apologize, emails that were sent, and me requesting
that it would be the amount plus interest, and they informed
me, whomever I was speaking with via email, that I would be
paid back. I needed to work through his lawyer, Mr. Martinez,
and all communication at that point fell off. I had never
received nothing more.
Q. Okay, and can you put a time frame on this for us?
A. To my remembering would have been the December time
Q. Of 2011?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So that we’re clear here, your testimony is that
those efforts we’ve just talked about, those communications
we’ve just talked about via email and directing you to contact
lawyers and that, that’s the first contact you’ve ever had
about getting repayment, is just –A.
Other than from Kyle and speaking with him, I have
never had any type of direct contact, other than that, that I
Q. Okay. Okay, if you’ll bear with me, we can probably
–-I think a lot of this has been covered. The only other
thing, just by way of clarification, I think you mentioned,
like Mr. Cluff did, that there was a representation made to
you about the DMV participating in this idea of X-Tagged,
right? Do you remember that?
Q. That representation was specifically –-I think the
way you worded it was he was in the process of working with
them; is that –-did I get that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay, not that there was any sort of affirmative deal
in place, but that that was an effort that was being made; is
Q. Did you ever follow up with Mr. Esquivel about some
of the things you’ve testified to with respect to interested
parties and X-Tagged, people like Michael Jordan or Google or
any of them?
No, I did not.
Q. Okay. Did you have any sort of –-did you think that
you were an owner of X-Tagged?
Q. Did you make any efforts to direct its affairs or, you
know, give ideas and input on it?
Q. Essentially is it –-is it fair to say that your buddy
Kyle made an investment and thought it was good, and you jumped
MR. HOLJE: That’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. Mr. Lyon?
MR. LYON: I’ve got nothing further from this witness.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Engelbrecht, you may
Your next witness?
MR. LYON: Similarly, your Honor, may he be excused?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LYON: You’re free to stay or go.
The State calls Ryion Butcher.
COURT CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in the case now before the Court will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
THE WITNESS: Yes.
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
BY MR. LYON:
Q. Okay, Mr. Butcher, could you please state your name
for the record –A.
Q. –-spelling your first and last name.
A. It’s Ryion Butcher, R-y-I-o-n B-u-t-c-h-e-r.
Q. Mr. Butcher, were you employed at Performax Gyms in
Clearfield in 2009?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. During that time did you work with Mr. Cluff?
Q. Who testified here today?
Q. At the time, Mr. Cluff was also working at Anytime
A. That’s correct.
Q. In your discussions and interactions with Mr. Cluff,
did you ever have any discussions about X-Tagged?
Q. At any point in time did the defendant come into
Performax Gyms and have any discussions with you about X-
A. Yes, he did. He came in.
Q. Could you tell us when that happened.
A. That happened April 2009.
Q. Tell us about this first encounter you’ve had with
A. Yes, he was coming in to talk about the company and
meet with Logan Laws and Kyle.
Q. Okay, and Logan Laws is another individual that
happened to invest?
A. Yes, he was an 18-year-old kid that invested.
Q. Was this meeting set up by Mr. Cluff?
A. I believe it was set up by Mr. Esquivel.
Q. Okay, and so Mr. Esquivel was coming to meet with
Mr. Laws; you just happened to kind of sit in on the meeting?
A. Yes, they –Q.
Okay, during that meeting the defendant talked about
Q. Could you tell us what he told you in describing the
A. Yes, he told us about this new social networking
company. That it was going to be bigger than all the current
social networking companies out there.
A. Google and –-well, I mean, Facebook and MySpace.
Q. Did he explain the company to you?
A. Yes, he was –-he talked about how they used the
license plates to verify individuals that it was really them
that were on the social networking site. That you would have
to get your picture taken with your license plate, and therefore
it would verify you that you’re that person.
Q. Now, did he tell you whether there were individuals
wanting to purchase X-Tagged?
A. Yes. He said that Google was interested in purchasing
X-Tagged. He was talking about a meeting with them within the
next two weeks.
Q. Did he give a price that investors were willing to pay
A. Yeah, he was throwing all sorts of numbers around. He
said upwards for $500,000,000 to $1,000,000,000.
Q. Did he make reference to one Hugh Hefner being
A. Yes, he says he turned Hugh Hefner down. He also
stated that he was going on the Oprah show.
Q. Now, in this contacts did he indicate to you whether
there was an opportunity to buy into the company?
A. Yes, the said there was a half of a percent left in
the company, and it was the last half percent, and that if I
wanted in, I better act quickly, because there were so many
investors in line looking at buying this last half percent up.
Q. Did you in fact –-let’s see, did he tell you what
that percent would be worth?
A. Yes, he said it was currently worth $50,000.
Q. Did he explain to you how that’s worth –A.
Q. –-$50,000? Did he explain what it would be worth
in the near future?
A. Yes, after –-well, after that, that meeting, and
after I invested it seemed like every single week the amount,
the price of it kept going up every single week.
Q. Okay, let’s just talk –A.
Q. –-Mr. Butcher, just as to this first meeting –A.
Q. –-did you in fact invest in the company then?
Q. How much did you put in?
A. I put in 25,000 –-I mean, $2,500 at first.
Q. He was wanting to sell half a percent for $5,000; is
Q. Okay, and so tell us how you put in $2,500 as opposed
A. Yes. Well, he said that if I would just pay the 25
for the half percent, and that I would kind of help out, then
that would make up for the rest.
Q. Okay, now at this time did the defendant tell you
whether X-Tag was patented?
Q. Did he tell you whether it was an LLC in Utah?
Q. Did he tell you whether it was a business in Utah?
Q. Did he explain to you whether there was any sort of
affiliation between the Department of Motor Vehicles and X-Tag?
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said that they were onboard with X-Tagged.
Q. When you say “onboard,” what does that mean?
A. That they were going to –-they were going to be a
part of X-Tagged and authorize the use of people’s license
plate, getting their help with X-Tag and making it safe.
Q. Okay, when –-and did he explain how that –-the
interaction between X-Tagged and the DMV was going to take
Q. Now, when you make your initial $2,500 investment, do
you remember what day?
A. Yeah, I believe –-I can’t remember the specific day.
Q. All right, well, let me just see if I can help refresh
your recollection. I’m showing you what’s been marked as
State’s Exhibit No. 4. Do you recognize that?
Q. Tell us what you’re looking at.
A. April 7 , 2009, a check for $2,500 made out to X-Tag.
Q. That’s your check?
Q. Okay, and that’s the first investment you make?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay, and did you receive –-in exchange for the
$2,500 did you receive anything?
A. Yes, I got a –-I have a document saying that –Q.
A. –-I would receive 50 –-50,000 shares.
Q. Okay, and I’m showing you –-this is all part of one
exhibit; but can you tell us what you’re looking at there?
A. Basically my investment paper –Q.
A. –-of 100,000. That was 100,000.
Q. Okay, and so –-okay, and from whom did you receive
that investment papers?
A. Mr. Esquivel.
Q. Okay, now after giving the first $2,500 were you
again approached by the defendant as to another investment
A. Yes, he said –Q.
When did that happen?
A. Just shortly after. About probably two weeks.
Q. Okay, tell us what happened.
A. He contacted me again and said that another half
percent became available.
Q. Were you interested in purchasing another half
Q. Did you in fact make another investment?
Q. How much was the second one for?
A. For $2,500.
Q. Again, referring to what’s been marked as Exhibit 4,
do you recognize these?
Q. Can you tell us what they are?
A. It’s my second investment of $2,500, and another
certificate saying that I own 50,000 shares.
MR. LYON: Okay, State moves to admit Exhibit 4.
MR. HOLJE: No objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. Just 4? They’re all the same
MR. HOLJE: They’ve all –-for the record, there are –Exhibit
4 has four documents within it.
THE COURT: Thank you. I’ll receive 4 with the four
(Exhibit No. 4 received into evidence)
Q. BY MR. LYON: Now, Mr. Butcher, in your conversations
with Mr. Esquivel, at any point in time did he let you know
that he had a judgment against him in 2003 for $3,075.62?
Q. Did he let you know he had a judgment against him in
1999 for $5,597.60?
Q. Did he let you know that he had a judgment against him
in 1999 for $1,537.69?
Q. Did he ever have a conversation with you about the
risks associated with investment?
Q. Did he ever let you know –-have a conversation with
you that you could get your money back if things didn’t work
out, things didn’t go public?
Q. Tell us about that.
A. Yes, he told us that rest assured that anytime we
wanted out, he would give us our money back with 12 percent
Q. Did he give you a date as when you could get that
A. He said anytime, because he –-he mentioned that he
had investors lined up, and any one of them would gladly jump
on that, that percent and buy it up for more than what I had
paid for it.
Q. Did you at anytime in fact try to exercise that right
and get your investment back?
Q. Tell us when that happened.
A. That happened within probably a month later. I
approached Mr. Esquivel and I said, “You know what, things
aren’t going too well. I’m getting ready to purchase a house.
I could really use my money back. Could I get that back?” and
he said, “Absolutely.” He goes, “I have an investor that’s
willing to pay $50,000 right now for it, so it will only be
helping X-Tag, but yeah, I’ll give you your money.” Then he
stated he would give me that money Monday.
Did you in fact receive your money back?
A. No, and then he told me I’d receive it on Wednesday.
Then he just kept dragging it out and out and out further and
further and further.
Q. At any time did the defendant let you know that he was
not licensed to sell securities in Utah?
No time did he ever.
Q. Other than those –-as part as what’s been received as
4, we’ve got those two documents memorializing the investment
you made, did you receive any other written explanation as to
the risks associated with investing in X-Tagged?
MR. LYON: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. HOLJE:
Q. So, Mr. Butcher, is it true that the only documents
you were given throughout this entire ordeal were those that
have been presented as State’s Exhibit 4?
Q. Okay, you didn’t –-unlike your friends, you didn’t
receive a convertible promissory note?
Okay, and I just –-for the record we need to clarify
a couple things. If I could direct your attention to the
consent of all members of the Board of Directors dated
April 7 , I think you have that one in front of you?
A. It’s right here.
Q. Oh, excuse me. That one mentions, does it not,
Mr. Butcher, that you were being granted 150,000 shares, and
then parentheses 100,000; is that right?
Q. Okay, do you –-do you know which is accurate?
A. The –-well, let’s see.
Q. In other words, the wording says 150 –A.
Yes, the wording –-he mixed up the wording.
Q. Do you know which is accurate?
A. For the 1 percent, it’s 100,000 for half it’s 50.
Q. Okay, and with respect to what’s being given in
exchange for that, this document dated April 7th says $5,000;
is that right?
Q. Is that what your copy says?
A. My total investment is 5,000, uh-huh.
Q. Okay, but on 4/7 of ‘09, on April 7 , you didn’t give
him $,000, right?
A. No, no.
Q. Okay. At no point did you, in a single episode, give
A. No, it was –Q.
A. –-two separate instances.
Q. Okay, with respect to the other one dated 4/7 –-4/16,
actually, of 2009, if I could direct your attention as well
to the amount given, the wording there says $5,000 was given,
right? I’m looking at the one dated April 16 th of ‘09.
Q. Okay, does that say that you gave him $5,000?
A. Yes, total I’ve given him $5,000.
Q. Okay, but not on that occasion, right?
Q. In fact, in parentheses it says 2,500, right?
Q. Okay. All right, I just wanted to put that on the
Q. –-to make sure that was –-that that was clear. Did
you believe you were an owner of X-Tagged?
Q. Were you ever told you were an owner or –A.
He would say –-he would say that we are, but we
really had no say in anything to do with X-Tag.
Q. You were –-this document that you signed here, the
ones that –-the two documents we’ve been talking about, they
call you the business associate, right?
Q. Okay, and they say that you will be taking an active
roll in the business of the corporation, right?
Q. Okay. You have promoted yourself as the X-Tagged
representative of Utah, right?
A. That’s the title he gave me.
A. Which I have no idea what it even means.
Q. Okay, did you –-didn’t you do a You Tube video sort
of promoting X-Tagged?
A. Yes, we did a funny –-promoting the stickers –Q.
A. –-that he goes around and puts on cars.
Q. Okay, and you –-you represented yourself to the world
through the Internet that you were the Utah representative of
Q. Okay, as that Utah representative of X-Tagged, what
was your role?
A. Basically just wanted me to help with things. For
instance, we wanted to change his website, make it better,
and so we were –-I was actively engaged in helping him fight,
somebody to do that and also do a promotional –-like a video
on how to use the X-Tag website.
Q. Is it fair to say marketing, you were –A.
Q. –-involved in marketing X-Tagged in Utah?
Q. Didn’t you represent to Mr. Esquivel or others
involved in X-Tagged that you had a marketing degree?
Q. At any time?
A. Not at any time.
Q. Are you aware of anybody suggesting that you did have
a marketing degree?
A. Some people might assume that, just because that’s
what I did at Performax. I would go marketing the gym.
A. So some people may interpret that as I must have a
marketing degree, but I do not.
Q. Your sworn testimony is you’ve never told anyone that
A. I never told anyone.
Q. Okay. How long did you act as the –-or are you still
acting as the Utah representative of X-Tagged?
A. No, I recent –-I found out quite quickly, started to
do my homework on Mr. Esquivel, and started to find out a lot
of the things that he had been telling us were in fact lies.
Q. How long would you say you acted in that roll?
A. Two weeks.
Q. Okay, so all in –-I think you told us you provided
money in April, early April of 2009?
A. Because I started getting suspicious pretty quick.
Q. Okay, are you aware of the date of the video that you
sent out or –A.
Q. Okay. All right, so you met in–-you met Mr. Esquivel
at a –-at a different gym than the one we’ve previously been
discussing, right? It wasn’t Anytime Fitness?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay, and when you met him, were either Kyle Cluff or
Chris Engelbrecht there?
A. Kyle was.
Q. Kyle was there as well?
Q. Okay, and his experience, did that inform your –-your
desire to meet with Mr. Esquivel?
A. No, it was after sitting down with Mr. Esquivel that I
was –-I became interested.
Q. Okay. Just purely out of curiosity when he walked in
the door you wanted to meet, or did Kyle say, “Hey, do you want
to sit down and meet?”
A. Yeah, just I wasn’t doing anything at the time, and
they were all going to meet, and so –Q.
A. –-I went and sat in.
Q. Okay, now so that we’re clear, I mean, your buddies
had given him money almost a year earlier, right?
Q. Okay, were you aware of that at the time?
A. At that time, yes.
Q. Okay. What we’ve heard here today in testimony is
that Mr. Esquivel talked about going on Oprah Winfrey as early
as March or February of 2008, and you met him in April of 2009,
Q. Is it your testimony that you heard him from his mouth
say he was going on Oprah Winfrey at that time?
Q. Okay, and did any red flags go off? Did your buddy
say, “Hey, he told us that a year ago and it still hasn’t
A. Well, they were on –-I think they still believe that
it was going to happen, because he would keep pushing things
further and further, just like the meeting for Google. It
would come time to meet with Google, and all of a sudden the
meeting’s changed to this month or this week or this week. It
just always kept changing. The dates always kept changing.
Q. Okay. Okay, I think you told us –and I apologize
if I get the amounts –-you correct me if I’m wrong –-did
you tell us that he said it was worth –-X-Tagged was worth
500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000?
A. Yes, he has told me that before.
Q. Upwards of that, right?
Q. Okay, and that he was willing to give you 1 percent
ownership of that for $5,000 or for –-yeah, I mean, ultimately
2 increments of a half percent for $5,000?
Q. Did you do any math there to –A.
I know, I feel really stupid. Yes.
Q. Okay, so when he comes back and offers you a half a
percent more, the difference in time there was just these 10
days, right? Is that –-is that accurate –A.
Yes. Yeah, there –Q.
–-there wasn’t a whole lot of time that had passed.
Q. Okay, in those 10 days did any of these –-let me
rephrase that. What kind of –-what kind of interaction did
you have with him during those 10 days?
A. I was trained to help promote the website, get stickers
out and schedule things. A lot of which Andy would fail to
show up or appear or get the things that I needed to me.
Q. Did you use the gym –-were you a manager at the gym,
A. I was –-I did –-I was the sales manager and did
marketing, and also personal training.
Q. Okay, and did you use the gym as sort of a vehicle to
get X-Tagged paraphernalia out there?
A. Did I use the gym?
Q. What I mean is, you know, did you promote X-Tagged
through the gym?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Didn’t have stickers available at the desk or –A.
Q. –-anything like that?
A. No, we were –-we were going to shoot a commercial
Q. All right, you testified earlier that –-or when
Mr. Lyon asked you about X-Tagged being a Utah business, was
there conversations about it being incorporated in any other
Q. Anybody ever bother to ask, that you’re aware of?
Q. You certainly didn’t ask, right?
Q. Okay. Have you subsequently learned that it’s a
business in Wyoming?
Q. Okay, when did that happen?
A. Probably a month ago.
Q. A month ago is when you found out, not when it was
made a business in Wyoming; is that –A.
Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Again, with respect to –-I’ll ask you what I asked
Mr. Engelbrecht –-with respect to the DMV, your testimony
before was that DMV was onboard. Is it possible that that
conversation said it’s in the works or something a little
softer than onboard?
A. I understood it to be that they were full on going –
A. –-and that it was active.
Q. Okay, so those weren’t his words that they were –the
deal was signed and stamped and ready to go. That’s your
interpretation of it, right?
Q. Okay. You mentioned Logan Laws was there, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Logan Laws, are you aware, has asked for money and
received money back in this instance?
A. Yes, but not without a fight.
Q. Okay, are you friends with Logan Laws?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Okay, have you made any efforts like Logan to get your
Q. Explain those, please.
A. Yes, when I first initially asked for my investment
back, I did it in a very nice way, after I found out that
through my research some of the things that Andy had told us
were lies. I just asked for my money back, didn’t want any
confrontation or anything.
When he just kept pushing the dates out, I called him
and I said that he wasn’t an honest man, and he blew up and got
mad at me, and then started telling all the other X-Tag people
that he kicked me off of X-Tagged because I was gay and I was
posting gay pictures of myself on X-Tag.
I do have an email stating that –-saying that he sent
a mass message out to everyone saying I was gay and I posted
gay pics, and that I would never see a penny of my investment.
Q. Subsequent to that have you sort of gone on your own
campaign on the Internet to –A.
Q. –-to say bad things about him?
A. Of warning people about Mr. Esquivel.
A. And the investment scam.
Q. Okay, and that includes, you know, blogging and
posting descriptions on Internet sites and those types of
A. Yes, telling my story basically.
Q. Okay, how long has that been going on?
A. For a while.
Q. Put in terms of months?
A. Probably two years.
Q. Okay, have you been approached by –-you’ve heard me
ask this question to your friends. Have you been approached by
Alan Brady, Steve Klemark, Shar Jenkins in regards to getting
A. Just Alan Brady.
Q. Okay, when did that happen?
A. Alan Brady, I’ve met with him once. I can’t recall
the day he came to Performax, though, and met with me, and
told me he’s working on getting our money back, and he has all
sorts of stuff on Andy Esquivel. I don’t know if he was just
pretending that he wasn’t with Andy anymore, but he told me
that Andy was indeed a fact –-a scam, and that there was a lot
more investors than I knew that were scammed, and he had a list
of them. Then he told me –
Q. Did you –A.
–-that he would try to get our money back, but
nothing ever happened.
Q. –-have you ever refused an offer to –A.
Q. –-give you money back?
Q. Never at any time?
A. Never at any time. They always said they were –-they
would say, “All right, we’re going to get you your money back,”
and then nothing would ever happen. Collin –-or Leonard
Martinez, his attorney, I called –-I’ve called him at least
20, 30 times and have not received an answer, or anything
about payback. Matter of fact, they were trying to negotiate
a payback the last time we were in Court with Andy, and said
that they were going to try and get us some –THE
COURT: Well, wait just a minute. Wait until
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
Q. BY MR. HOLJE: As long as you bring it up, have you
been approached by anyone at the –-and I’m not talking about
today, okay? Specifically Kathy Morris, have you ever been
approached about anybody about, you know, your desire to go
forward with this case versus getting some money and drifting
off into the sunset?
Okay. Did you refuse to take money at that point?
A. No, I never refused to take the money. I even said
he didn’t have to pay me back the 12 percent interest. I just
said, ‘Just give me the 5,000 and we’re done.” I mean, that’s
Q. From that time you’ve never heard any offer about
getting 5,000 back; is that accurate or –A.
MR. HOLJE: I think that’s all the questions I have for
you, Mr. Butcher.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lyon?
MR. LYON: I’ve got nothing further from this witness.
May he please be excused?
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Butcher, you may step down
and be excused. Thank you for coming today.
MR. LYON: You’re free to stay or to go.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Your next witness.
MR. LYON: The State calls Adam Sweet.
COURT CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in the case now before the Court will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
THE WITNESS: Yes.
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
BY MR. SWEET:
Q. Would you please state your name for the record,
spelling your last name.
A. Adam Sweet. Last name S-w-e-e-t.
Q. What’s your occupation?
A. I am a securities compliance investigator for the Utah
Division of Securities in the Utah Department of Commerce.
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. For approximately 19 months.
Q. Were you assigned to perform the investigation
regarding the defendant?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Okay, you’ve sat through the testimony of Mr. Cluff,
Engelbrecht and Butcher, correct?
Q. Okay, now in your investigation of the defendant, did
you locate any past judgments that have been –-I’m not sure
what the proper (inaudible) terminology is –-levied against
Q. Rendered, thank you.
Q. Okay, could you tell us about those?
A. Yes, I can. Can I refer to my notes?
MR. HOLJE: Your Honor, we’ll stipulate that what
exists on, you know, on Court records is –-it is what it is.
I think the records an speak for themselves, rather than go
through half a dozen judgments.
MR. LYON: That’s fine, and I think I’ve gone through
each one of the witnesses what those judgments are. If they’re
willing to stipulate to that, that’s great.
THE COURT: Were there four of them?
MR. LYON: Three.
THE COURT: Three of them.
MR. LYON: Two in 1999. One for about 5,500, the other
for just over 15, and one in 2003 for just over 3,000.
THE COURT: You’ll stipulate to those?
MR. HOLJE: Not to the –THE
COURT: That they exist?
MR. HOLJE: That they exist, right.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
Q. BY MR. LYON: Okay, did you also perform an investigation
as to whether X-Tagged is a registered business?
A. Yes, I looked into whether or not it was a registered
Q. Okay, and how did you do that?
A. By accessing the Utah Division of Corporations.
Q. According to the Utah records is X-Tagged a registered
business at all?
Q. Has it ever been?
A. In Utah, no, not by the name of X –-X-Tagged had no
Q. Did you investigate whether Mr. Esquivel is licensed
to sell securities in the State of Utah?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Has he ever been so licensed?
Q. Do you –-you’re familiar with the assertion that the
defendant made representations that he had communicated with
the Division of Motor Vehicles, and they were going to grant
authorization to communicate with the State database?
A. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the –-didn’t get the first
part of the question.
Q. Let me give you a better question.
Q. At all during your investigation, did you investigate
whether the Division of Motor Vehicles had granted defendant
consent or access authorization to communicate and access the
database containing all of the –-the DMV records?
A. Yes, I did. I did contact the Utah DMV and spoke
with someone and received a letter in return verifying that
–-without looking at it –-that X-Tagged would –-or Andy
Esquivel, that they had never had any dealings or operations
with them, and that –-it said in the letter, generally
speaking, they would never condone such activity, by allowing
a private company to gain access to drivers license and
people’s personal information.
Q. That’s because –-is it –-do you know whether that
information is protected by State and Federal statute?
A. I don’t know that.
A. I do know that now, after glancing down at the letter.
I don’t know if you want me to read that brief part.
Q. That’s sufficient.
Q. Do you –-did you investigate whether X-Tagged had
ever become a publicly traded company?
A. No. I mean, as far as I understand as a personal
investigator, that it was not a Utah registered as a business.
I kind of stopped there.
Q. Okay, so you would –-there’s no need to even go
A. Yeah, as far –-yeah.
Q. Did you check to verify whether X-Tag has ever been
A. I did. I did an online search of the U. S. Patent
Office, and there were no results for X-Tagged.
Which would indicate?
A. As far as I understand, it would indicate a patent
that X-Tagged was –-had claimed or was in the process of
Meaning there is no patent?
Not –-no, no.
MR. LYON: Okay, I’ve got nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. HOLJE:
Q. So, Mr. Sweet, you –-you investigated X-Tagged in
other states, correct?
A. I –-as –-I investigate –-no, I just investigated
the Utah –Q.
Did you –-did you look into whether or not there was
a –-the name X-Tagged was being reserved in Colorado?
A. It was either Colorado or Wyoming. I think I’d come
across that X-Tagged is a registered corporation there, in one
of those two. I can’t remember.
Q. Okay, and that that name –-well, does your report
refer to anything about the name X-Tagged being held in the
State of Colorado?
A. Let me –-let me check. It would right here if it
did. I do have in my report that X-Tagged is not registered
in Utah. X-Tagged held a name reservation in Colorado from
April 1 , 2010 to July 30 , 2010, with Darrel Acumen listed as
Q. Okay, not Andy Esquivel?
A. No, if it had said his name I would have put that in
Q. Okay, are you aware that X-Tagged is incorporated I
the State of Wyoming?
A. No. If I –-well, no, I’m not.
Q. Okay, your investigation –A.
If I –-no, I mean, if I had reason to, I mean, to
search a particular state I would. I just don’t rand –-you
know, randomly. I think Colorado I learned that he was –-had
visited Colorado or was doing business in Colorado. So I went
to that State’s corporation’s website. So I had reason to look
there, and that’s why I came across Colorado’s information –Q.
A. –-but I don’t recall. Wyoming’s new to me. I don’t
recall any of the investors testifying –Q.
A. –-anything about it.
Q. You were being told that X-Tagged was a bogus business
A. By who?
Q. Well, by any of the individuals that you’ve –-that
you met with as part of this investigation?
A. Um –Q.
Any of these alleged victims who’ve testified today?
A. –-they were complaining –-they submitted –-they
complained that they invested money with X-Tagged and Andy,
and hadn’t got their money paid back; and they proceeded to
tell me the representations that were made to them.
Q. Okay, but not necessarily that X-Tagged was not an
actual business or anything?
A. Um –Q.
In other words, an alter ego for –A.
–-I don’t remember an investor saying X-Tagged is not
Q. Okay, as far as you were concerned, it was, right? It
just didn’t –A.
Until I researched it and found out that it wasn’t
registered in Utah, but had a name reservation in Colorado.
Q. Okay. All right. Did you –-did you come across –well,
let me try that again. You did come across some other
businesses that Mr. Esquivel was involved in, right?
A. I did. So yes.
Q. Is single and dating one of those?
Q. Okay, any –-and that was registered in the State of
A. Yeah, I have that registered for the State of Utah.
have the registration date, the expiration date, and then what
position Mr. Esquivel held.
Q. Okay, any sort of overlap that you were aware of, or
connection between single and dating and X-Tagged?
A. No. I mean, when we do a search of the corporation’s
website we can search of we know the names of the company.
Specifically we can do it that way; or if we don’t, we can put
in the principal’s name, the individual’s name, and that will
pull up businesses registered to that person. So –Q.
A. –-it doesn’t explain any connections.
Q. But your investigation didn’t focus on whether or not
the two were somehow related?
A. No, because the complaints were not about single and
MR. HOLJE: Okay, Judge, if I could have just one quick
THE COURT: Go ahead. Are you all right?
COURT CLERK: Yeah.
MR. HOLJE: All right, I think that’s all the questions
I have for you. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Any followup, Mr. Lyon?
MR. LYON: Not from this witness.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Sweet. You may step down.
MR. LYON: Just one, Judge. State calls Tom Brady.
COURT CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in the case now before the Court will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
BY MR. LYON:
Q. Would you please state your name for the record,
spelling your last name.
A. Thomas Brady, B-r-a-d-y.
Q. What’s your occupation?
A. I’m the acting director of enforcement for the Utah
Division of Securities.
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. Well, I’m currently in two roles. I’m also the
securities analyst. I’ve been the acting director for a month.
Q. How long have you been with the Utah Division of
A. Just under three years.
Q. Prior to taking a job with the Division of Securities,
did you receive any education?
A. I’m a lawyer; I’m an attorney.
Q. Okay, let’s talk about your education. You received
an undergraduate degree?
A. Yes, my undergraduate degree is in political science
from Brigham Young University.
Q. You say you’re a lawyer; you’ve gone on to law school?
A. Yes, I attended Michigan State University.
Q. Okay, and when did you finish up there?
A. In 2009.
Q. Tell us about your responsibilities as a securities
analyst and then Director of Enforcement.
A. Okay. As the analyst I’m more or less a staff
attorney. I’m a staff attorney or in-house Counsel for the
Division of Securities in the enforcement section. My responsibilities
are mainly to take the investigative reports that the
investigators conclude, review them, ensure that the elements
are met for whatever the allegations or causes of actions are,
and then prepare the pleadings for that case. Also for ongoing
cases I negotiate settlement agreements with opposing Counsel.
Q. Do you write any technical reports or articles based
upon –-as an analyst?
A. Yes, yes. When legal issues arise, it’s my task to
research those out. I prepare memos explaining the nuances
that come up in our cases.
Q. Provide legal Counsel to that division, then?
Q. Okay, now tell us about –-as an acting director, tell
us what your responsibilities are.
A. My responsibilities are to screen incoming complaints,
supervise attorneys and investigators with their respective
case files. Also to –-I am involved in negotiations on
certain administrative proceedings.
Q. Now, are you affiliated with any groups related to
A. Related to securities law, yes. I’m a member of the
North American State Securities Association.
Q. Have you held any positions of responsibility within
A. Yes, I’m a member of the Mountain Region Enforcement
Q. Okay, and so what does that mean?
A. In that region or zone, there are representatives from
each state. I think there are eight or nine states in our
region that are represented, and we meet semi-annually to
discuss certain trends that are occurring, certain fraudulent
trends that are occurring within our respective states. We
also do what’s called “de-conflicting,” where we discuss
potential targets that we’re investigating one state that may
have carryover into a different state. Mainly it’s working
Q. As a result of your training and experience, do you –can
you tell us what a security is?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What is –A.
Would you like me to?
A. Well, a security, by name, under the statute, under
61-1-13 could be a stock, a note or a bond, an interest in
an LLC. There are certain categories that it falls under.
There are –-or specifically named categories. Then there
are broader categories, such as an investment contract that we
Q. Okay. Are all securities regulated by the State of
A. Yes. In addition to that, securities are regulated by
the Federal Government.
Q. Okay. Due monitoring. Can you tell us why they’re
A. To protect investors, more or less. To protect the
investors. Not to inhibit business, but protect the investors.
Q. As part of protecting investors has the State imposed
certain regulations and disclosures associated with the sale of
A. Yes, they have.
Q. Okay, and is that primarily located in 61-1-1?
A. Yes and no. There are three areas where securities
are regulated under –-under the Utah Uniform Securities Act.
The first one is registration. So if securities –-any offer
of a security needs to be registered with Federal Government or
with the State.
MR. HOLJE: Judge, I’m going to object on relevance at
this point. I mean, he’s charged with securities fraud. I
think for purposes of today we don’t need the academic lecture
here on this.
THE COURT: You’re satisfied that at least the charging
document, the Information charging securities fraud, that that
definition –-or the alleged actions here would fall within
MR. HOLJE: The alleged acts, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
MR. LYON: Okay, and I don’t want to –-I know it’s
already a quarter after 5, I’m sure everyone’s having a good
time, but I will try to move us along.
MR. HOLJE: So that I’m –-and so that we’re clear, I’m
not admitting the definition of the security here. I’m just,
you know. What I’m saying is we can look at the statute
ourselves and see how security is defined.
MR. LYON: Okay.
THE COURT: But for purposes of today’s hearing, you
don’t object to the Court relying on the testimony of this
witness, when he indicates that the alleged actions would
fall within the securities fraud statute subject to your –assuming
it goes onto the time of trial, fleshing that out
and trying to have the Court or the trier of fact, a jury,
make a determination as to whether it actually falls within
MR. HOLJE: Right, and I think he’s told us that a
security is a stock, a bond, a note, I mean, an investment
contract. Those are all statutory. We can look at those and
see. So it’s –
THE COURT: Okay. I think for purposes of this hearing
today then we’ve probably gone far enough, Mr. Lyon, unless you
think there’s a couple more questions you need to ask.
MR. LYON: No. I mean, ultimately that’s –-well, let
me be quick here, real fast, your Honor. I do have just a few
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. BY MR. LYON: You understand that for purposes of
today’s hearing only, we’re acknowledging that these three
transactions that took place fall within the parameters of a
security. So we don’t need to whether –-concern ourselves
whether they are or not –MR.
HOLJE: Judge, I may have confused everybody here.
I apologize. I’m not saying that we admit that what took place
here, even for today’s purposes, falls within security. I’m
just saying this witness is sort of testifying about where we
can find securities and how they’re regulated and –
THE COURT: Well, Counsel, I think it’s the burden of
the State, if he’s going to in fact prove up his Information,
that we’ve got to have some definition of securities for the
Court to make a determination that the alleged actions fell
within the securities fraud statute. So I mean –
MR. HOLJE: I agree with that, and all I’m saying is I
just don’t want to read through Title 61 here, you know. We
know that’s in there, but –
THE COURT: Okay, you just ask him a few clarifying
questions, will you –
MR. LYON: I will.
THE COURT: –that will get us where we need to be as
far as the limited scope that we’re trying to fit within here.
MR. LYON: Okay, and I do want to move things along.
just want to make sure I’m laying adequate foundation for the
THE COURT: Sure.
Q. BY MR. LYON: Okay, my train of thought is derailed. We
have talked about what a security is and why they’re regulated.
Could you tell us where primarily it is –-the focus of the
regulation is within the code? I mean, we’re –-it’s located
within 61-1; is that correct? At least part, in part.
A. That’s the anti-fraud provision of the code, yes.
Q. Okay, now under that section of the code are there
any responsibilities and obligations placed upon an individual
who is selling a security as far as disclosures go?
Q. Okay, could you tell us about those.
A. Well, specifically you can look at subsection (2)
of 61-1-1 where it states that during an offer an individual
makes any untrue statement of material fact, or omits to state
a material fact, in order to make the statements made in the
light of the circumstances under which they’re made not misleading.
Under that provision, if an individual is offering a
security, yes, they need to state material facts. In other
words, good disclosures. If they fail to give or omit those
disclosures, then they violate that subsection.
Q. Okay, and you’ve heard the testimony today of these
Q. Okay, are there any disclosures that should have been
given –-well, before we get there, let me just ask you, you
have heard –-you’ve had a chance to review the file regarding
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Heard the testimony today by these three witnesses?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether –-let’s start
with Mr. Cluff –-whether the investment made by Mr. Cluff,
whether that was a security?
A. In my opinion, yes, that was a security transaction.
Q. Could you tell us why?
A. Well, in the initial offer it looks as if Mr. Esquivel
was offering a stock or a share of a company in that initial
offer. By definition, as we mentioned earlier, under statute,
a stock is a security, and share of a company is a security, so
long as it has the characteristics of a stock.
With the official transaction I guess you could say
while he was offered a stock it looks like what he actually
received was a promissory note. “He” being Mr. Cluff. Looks
like he received a promissory note under the code. A note is
presumed –-and under case law a note a presumed to be a
Q. Okay, and understanding the presumptions that applied,
do you still believe that this –-that the note that was given
to Mr. Cluff is a security?
A. In my opinion, yes, it’s likely a security.
Q. Okay, can you tell us why?
A. Well, under–-when analyzing a note, as I said before,
under the Reeves’ test a note is presumed to be a security.
There are seven categories of non-securities. If a security –or
excuse me, a promissory note does not fall on its face in
one of those categories, you then apply what’s called a “family
In my opinion the promissory note did not fall in
any of those seven categories. So the next step would be to
look at the four factors of the family resemblance test, which
would indicate does it look like it falls into one of those
A. Those factors –Q.
You’re talking about –-when you say “the four
factors,” this is essentially the Reeves’ test that was
commonly referred to?
A. The Reeves’ test or family resemblance test.
Q. Okay, can you just go through those four factors?
A. Sure. The first one is the expectation of the seller
and the buyer. In looking in this transaction, it looks like
the expectation of the seller and the buyer was that it was an
The second factor is the plan of distribution. In
this case it’s a little different, a little difficult to pinpoint
that. In my opinion it does not look like there was a
plan of distribution. You could argue that it could be open to
anybody, or it was specific to these individuals. So I don’t
know that that’s applicable in this case, in my opinion.
A. The third factor would be the expectation of the
public as to whether or not the transaction was an investment.
In my opinion the public would deem this as an investment.
A. Because it had the characteristics of an investment.
There was an expectation of profit, there was furnishing value
with the expectation of profit. There was no consumer nature
to this. It looks like an investment.
Q. Okay, tell us about the fourth factor.
A. The fourth factor involves any risk reducing factors,
which would include a regulatory scheme or collateral –-or
collateral for the investment.
Q. Is there any sort of regulatory scheme?
A. It doesn’t look like it. In reviewing the promissory
note, there is no regulatory scheme attached.
Q. What would be a regulatory scheme?
A. Oh, for example, if it were –-a CD is regulated by
the FDIC. There’s another entity regulating that to ensure
the investor –-in other words, to protect the investor. There
is no protection here for the investor by another regulatory
agency, nor was the note collateralized. So those are three
out of –-given three out of the four factors. Missing one is
not dispositive; so in my opinion it’s likely to be a security.
Q. Now, you heard the testimony of Mr. Cluff as to the
events that led up to the first investment of $4,000, and then
a subsequent investment of 2,000 and a title to his vehicle and
whatnot. During all of this interaction with the defendant and
Mr. Cluff, were there any –-was there any information that
should have been revealed to Mr. Cluff by the defendant but
A. Well, material information, yes.
Q. Such as?
A. Financial statement of X-Tagged in its business operations,
its track record to other investors if it had other
investors, certainly the judgments against Mr. Esquivel should
have been disclosed, in my opinion.
Q. What about the patent information?
A. That would have been a misstatement, in light of the
evidence that I’ve seen. By stating that there was a patent
pending or in the works, and then as the investigation showed
that that was not true, that would be considered a misstatement
rather than a disclosure.
Q. Okay, so we’re breaking into two different categories
as far as omissions.
Q. You’re talking omissions he should have disclosed
financial records and specifically the fact that he has three
Q. Okay, and as far as misstatements, what would you put
in that category?
A. Well, the patent.
A. Stating that there was a patent, and if I could review
A. Is that okay? Okay. I think as far as provable
misstatements, I think the patent would be the large one in
this –-in that transaction.
Q. Okay, let’s talk about now Mr. Engelbrecht. You’ve –you’ve
heard the testimony of Mr. Engelbrecht, and also had a
chance to read the file regarding this. Do you have an opinion
as to whether the investment made by Mr. Engelbrecht was a
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And the opinion is?
A. I think it’s very similar to Mr. Cluff’s. Sounds like
the same transaction. The offer seemed to be a stock, and the
sale seemed to be a promissory note, which both are securities.
Q. Just so we’re clear, you’re breaking this down into
two separate analysis, essentially, because the –-if I’m
understanding you correctly, there’s discussion about stock,
but when it’s memorialized in writing it’s a promissory note.
Are you –-is it your testimony that both of these would fall
within the parameters of a security?
A. Yes, under 61-1-1 it talks about in connection with
the offer or sale of a security. Because there are different
securities, there are different products –I should say
different products here. That’s why I’ve broken them up into
two. Seems to have a different product with the offer than
with the sale.
Q. Okay, given the events leading up to the investment
by Mr. Engelbrecht, were there any disclosures that should have
been made known unto Mr. Engelbrecht that were not?
A. Yes, financial statements, the civil judgments that
were pending. Also there were statements made as to the value
of the stock, which under Hanley, Hanley vs. SEC it states that
in order for an offerer to recommend a security, there needs
to be a reasonable basis for recommending the security.
In my opinion some of the –-some of the statements
made about a stock being worth $1 one day and then soon growing
to $500 per share, in order to make that a reasonable statement
there needs to be some disclosure as to how that’s going to
happen. So in my opinion that would be a disclosure issue as
well, explaining how it jumps from $1 to $500.
Q. Were there any misstatements that occurred?
A. May I review my notes?
A. Yes, the statement about the DMV having a working
relationship with X-Tagged and then the subsequent verification
that that was false, that would be a misstatement. Also, again
the patent. Also the statement that there’s no risk in the
Again, going back to (Inaudible), there needs to be
a reasonable basis for making a statement, and the statement
that there’s no risk in an investment, especially a high yield
investment like this one, there needs to be a reasonable basis
for making that statement. I did not see one in the evidence,
and it does not appear that Mr. Esquivel gave Mr. Engelbrecht
a reasonable justification for making that statement. So I
would –-in my opinion that would be a misstatement as well.
Q. When we’re looking at the required parameters for
disclosure, is it necessary for the defendant to have explained
what was being done, what had been done, or how X-Tagged was
going to become a public company?
A. Yes. In light of the statements made about X-Tagged,
and the success it was going to have, the interest from Google,
Facebook, MySpace, in order to make those reasonable statements
there needed to be some sort of explanation to make the statements
Q. Now, let’s move onto Mr. Butcher. You’ve had a chance
to review the file regarding Mr. Butcher?
A. I have.
Q. You’ve heard his testimony here today?
Q. Do you have an opinion whether the investment made by
Mr. Butcher is a security?
A. Yes, it looks like Mr. Butcher received a stock.
Q. Were there any diclosures that should have been made
to Mr. Butcher that were not?
A. Yes, the financial statements, the civil judgments,
also there are risk disclosures, although I did just get
through saying that saying there’s no risk is a misstatement.
Also the failure to disclose risks is an omission of material
Q. So if there was no conversation between Mr. Butcher
and Mr. Esquivel as to the risk, that would be an omission?
A. Also, again, the statements –-well, as far as the
disclosures, yes, there needed to be disclosures as to how the
investment was going to succeed.
Q. The –-are there any misstatements that were made?
A. If I can review my notes, please. That the DMV was
onboard, as Mr. –-as Mr. Butcher characterized. Also the
worth of this stock. I think again going back to making the
statement reasonable, the fact that Mr. Esquivel made a statement
that a half percent of a company was worth $50,000, but he
was willing to sell that to Mr. Butcher for $5,000, I believe
it was –-or excuse me, 2,500. No, it was 5,000 –-5,000 for
a share that was worth $50,000, I think in order to make that
statement reasonable, there needed to be some sort of explanation.
Q. What about the statement regarding the patent of
X-Tagged, where would that fall?
A. That would be a misstatement, in light of the investigation
showing that there was no patent.
MR. LYON: Okay, I’ve got nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel.
MR. HOLJE: Just a few questions, your Honor.
BY MR. HOLJE:
Q. So Mr. Brady, just so that we’re clear, there are
statutory –-securities are statutorily enumerated to an
extent; is that correct?
Q. In other words, a stock is a security, a bond is a
security, a note is a security?
Q. What we’re talking about in this case, at least with
respect to two of the alleged victims is –-are –-just totally
lost my train of thought –-the promissory notes, the convertible
promissory notes; is that right?
Q. A convertible promissory note is different from a
traditional note, correct?
A. I guess you could say that, yes.
Q. In other words, a convertible promissory note gives
somebody an opportunity to convert what is otherwise a note
into stock; is that accurate?
Q. Okay, so to your knowledge is convertible –-specifically
a convertible promissory note listed anywhere in the regulatory
scheme of Utah?
A. No, it’s broadly defined as simply “note.”
Q. Okay, and is it your testimony that the term “note”
encompasses a convertible promissory note?
A. If it passed the family resemblance test of the
Reeves’ test, yes, that would be my testimony.
Q. Okay, so it’s not an automatic thing. There’s this
analysis that needs to take place, right?
A. Yes, it needs to be a substance over form issue.
Q. Okay. Right. Okay, and in this particular case, at
least with respect to those that Counsel that are talking about
convertible promissory notes, there was no stock issued at any
point, right, or no stock given to them?
A. Officially –-with the first two?
Q. In other words –-so we need to make the record clear.
With respect to Mr. Cluff, then Mr. Engelbrecht, they never
received any stock, right?
A. It looks like in reviewing the file they received a
receipt indicating that they own shares. I don’t know that
they received any stock certificates officially.
Q. Right, okay.
A. If that’s what you’re asking.
Q. That is what I’m asking; and essentially, I mean, is
it fair to say they have a piece of paper saying that if they
want shares of stock they can get them, but that’s about it,
right? Is that –A.
Yes, and no. With –-as far as the promissory note is
concerned, yes, that’s correct, but a securities transaction
does not need to be in writing. It can be an oral agreement.
Q. Okay, and so are you relying on what –-we broke this
down into a dichotomy of sale versus –-or offer versus sale.
Are you relying on the offer when you give your opinion that
they were offered stocks?
Q. Okay, that’s not based on the fact that they received
a convertible promissory note; it’s based on the fact that the
word “share” was used or something like that, or –A.
To clarify, you’re still talking about the first two–Q.
Yes, I am. Yeah.
A. Yes, based on the statements, the oral statements
made during the offer of a security, by the description or
Mr. Esquivel, my opinion of what he sold them was a stock.
Q. Okay, and your opinion is essentially aside from –your
opinion is not reliant on the convertible promissory note,
it sounds like, at least not exclusively?
A. Not with the offer. With the actual sale, yes.
Q. Right, okay. All right. I’m just –-I’m not trying
to confuse you. I’m trying to wrap my brain around this. You
said your opinion was that yes, it’s a security. With respect
to Engelbrecht and Cluff, your opinion was that it was a stock.
I’m just trying to figure out why you had that opinion. It’s
not based solely on the convertible promissory note. It takes
into account other factors.
A. Yes, and if you’d like I can explain why I think it’s
Q. That actually might be helpful, yeah.
A. Okay, again, there needs to be a substance over form.
Although with a category like stocks and notes, it’s more cut
and dry; but with a stock, so long as the product that’s sold
has the characteristics of a stock it is considered a security.
Q. Okay, the family resemblance test, right?
A. No, no, that would be –-family resemblance relates to
the promissory note or to any note.
A. A stock, if –-in order to look at the characteristics
of a stock, they’re typical –-there are usually five or six,
I believe. There’s whether or not there are voting rights;
dividends; whether it’s negotiable, meaning you can transfer
it, it’s transferrable; and whether or not there’s an appreciation
in value. If it carries those characteristics then it’s
likely a stock.
In looking in this case, judging by what Mr. Esquivel
was offering, in my opinion the stock offered was a security,
based on those characteristics.
Q. Okay, but the convertible promissory note that they
were actually given didn’t specify any of those things, right?
In fact, it said the opposite; no voting rights were given,
and that, you know, transferability and all those issues were
addressed in that; isn’t that accurate?
A. Yes, and therefore with the promissory notes you would
take a different analysis and view them as a note.
Q. Okay, so you’re –-you’re not looking at the two
together. You’re saying, “Hey, we have a stock here,” just
because at that point it meets the definition regardless of
what happened afterwards with the promissory note?
A. Well, I would say in my opinion Mr. Esquivel offered
one type of security, offered one security –Q.
A. –-and sold a different security.
Q. Okay, and the fact that it was offered, that’s where
you’re saying fraud comes in, right?
A. Well, I’d say fraud comes in on both the offer and the
Q. Okay. You went through –-I don’t want to get too
bogged down in this family resemblance test here, but –A.
Q. –-isn’t one of the considerations the managerial
efforts that are made by individuals involved in the company
A. What you’re talking about is a passive investor.
Q. What I’m asking is, does it matter that Ryan Butcher
was the Utah representative, and that he put in efforts to
direct his company?
A. Okay, I think I know what you’re asking.
Q. Oh, and frankly, Kyle Cluff, as well, admitted to
being an owner of it, suggesting ideas on the direction of the
company. Those are relevant considerations, aren’t they?
A. They are if you’re using an investment contract
analysis. Under the investment –-to determine whether or
not a transaction or a product is a security as an investment
contract, you use what’s called a “Risk Capital Test,” which
looks at four factors.
One of them is what you’re talking about. One is
furnishing value; two, with the expectation of profit; three,
subject to the risk of the enterprise; and four, does the
investor receive actual or practical control of the enterprise?
Q. Okay, so you’re saying that is specific to investment
A. The way you’re describing it, yes.
Q. Okay, and it doesn’t factor into notes or stocks?
A. That particular prong is for the investment contract
analysis. It wouldn’t provide the note analysis.
MR. HOLJE: Okay. Okay, I think that’s all the
questions I have, your Honor, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
MR. LYON: (Inaudible).
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Brady. Appreciate it very
MR. LYON: The State rests, your Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel, do you anticipate calling any
MR. HOLJE: No, I don’t, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you feel a need to argue anything?
MR. HOLJE: I can do it very briefly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HOLJE: Judge, with respect to Count No. I, that
alleges an amount of $10,000 or more. That is specific to
Mr. Cluff, Kyle Cluff. The State is alleging that it’s over
the $10,000 threshold based on an initial $4,000 check, a
subsequent $2,000 check, and then a credit that was given by
Mr. Esquivel just to be a nice guy, apparently, or whatever,
for a diet plan that was made. He was, you know, he was an
employee of the gym and was apparently helping him learn how
to eat right.
So Mr. Esquivel on his own says, “Okay, we’ll give you
a $2,000 credit for the diet plan. In addition, another $2,000
is credited based on a title to a ten-year-old car. In 2008 –in
2008 it’s a 1998 Chevy Cavalier. So a ten-year-old car that
by his own admission is inoperable, and again $2,000 seems to
be just kind of pulled out of thin air. You know, there’s no
evidence presented about the actual value of this 1998 Chevy
I would suggest that a ten-year-old car that’s inoperable
in a Chevy particularly is not worth $2,000. That’s just
a number that was arrived at by Mr. Esquivel. Same with the
diet plan. Mr. Cluff told us there were no receipts given,
there were no –-it wasn’t invoiced. It was just a number that
they pulled out.
So in actuality what you have here is $6,000 being
given. The rest I would say are just credits that should not
be deemed sufficient for purposes of the $10,000 threshold.
That would make it a third –-that would make Count I a third-
degree felony, not a second degree felony.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HOLJE: I’ll submit on that basis, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you. Let me first indicate for
Mr. Esquivel’s purpose and for anyone in the courtroom, I
think that both lawyers in this case understand that in
preliminary hearings it’s not the –-the Court doesn’t have
the opportunity to weigh the evidence, and has to take the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
So specifically, Mr. Esquivel, as it pertains to
your lawyer’s arguments regarding the value of the vehicle
and the value of the diet plan, the fact is there was evidence
presented that those were the values; 2,000, 2,000, $6,000
cash. So the Court takes that as –-as to be true in this
particular case, because I can’t weigh the evidence. It’s been
presented, and I take the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State.
So given that premise, let me back up, then, and
say based on the testimony of the witnesses, the documentary
evidence that I’ve received, that the Court finds probable
cause to believe that there were crimes committed in this
particular case by Mr. Esquivel; and they were as follows:
Count I, the Court finds that there was the crime
of securities fraud, a second-degree felony, committed in this
case. Probable cause to believe that it was been committed
by Mr. Esquivel, and specifically the $10,000 or more value
would apply to Mr. Cluff. So even though he’s not named in
this information, the Court believes that count would follow
The Court also finds probable cause to believe that
the crime in Count II, securities fraud, a third-degree felony,
was committed; and Count III, securities fraud, a third-degree
fraud, was committed as well. I’m not going to attach a victim
to either one of those, but we have two victims that basically
it appears to the Court after having heard the evidence that
each of those victims would be identified with one of these
So I’ll find that it’s appropriate to bind this over
to the trial Court, which in this case is Judge –
MR. LYON: Connors, your Honor.
THE COURT: –-Connors. How far out do you want to go?
MR. HOLJE: A couple of months, maybe?
MR. LYON: Let’s go –-this is just for arraignment.
MR. HOLJE: Oh, yeah, let’s just –-sorry, I thought
you sere setting the trial date as well, Judge.
THE COURT: No, no, no, no. So –
MR. HOLJE: We can –
THE COURT: –-arraignment.
MR. HOLJE: –-go just a couple –
THE COURT: Judge Connors holds his on Wednesday
mornings at 8:30.
MR. LYON: Tuesday.
COURT CLERK: Tuesday mornings.
THE COURT: At what?
MR. LYON: Tuesday mornings.
THE COURT: Tuesdays, excuse me. Thank you for keeping
me straight. Probably one other thing I ought to indicate for
the record that as Mr. Lyon indicated, securities is not one of
the areas that we normally get involved with. I was, however,
satisfied after having reviewed the statute and heard the
testimony of the expert witnesses, that at least there was
sufficient evidence presented that the Court could find
probable cause that these alleged incidents were in fact
a security transaction on each one of the three counts, and
therefore the violation occurred.
So have you got a date?
MR. HOLJE: Just a few weeks out is fine.
COURT CLERK: On the 3 or the 10 of April?
MR. HOLJE: I’m in Duchesne on the 3 rd. If we could go
to the 10 , please.
THE COURT: Mr. Lyon, do you want your exhibits?
MR. LYON: Yeah, do you mind if I withdraw them, or do
you want to leave them in?
MR. HOLJE: No, I don’t care.
THE COURT: I’ll allow you to withdraw your exhibits.
MR. HOLJE: Your Honor, this is kind of a weird request.
I’ve done it in the past, but he’s a –-he’s a resident of
Colorado. At least that’s where he’s at right now. He’s
making quite a bit of travel plans to get here each time for
Court. Is there any way to waive his personal appearance at
that arraignment, and you know, we’ll know –
THE COURT: Well, if that’s all we’re going to do is an
arraignment, we can do one of two things. We either waive his
appearance and you appear on his behalf, or I could actually
arraign him today, and then we set it for pretrial down the
road once you’ve had an opportunity to prepare. Let’s don’t –
MR. LYON: We can do that right now.
MR. HOLJE: Why don’t we do that, yeah. He’ll enter
pleas of not guilty right now, your Honor, and that might be
cleaner way. I apologize for not suggesting that sooner.
THE COURT: Well, let’s do this, then. Setting on
behalf of Judge Connors, and this case having been bound over
by the Magistrate, we’re here on an arraignment, Mr. Esquivel.
Counsel, Mr. Esquivel has a copy of the Information?
MR. HOLJE: Yes, he does.
THE COURT: He understands each of the counts?
MR. HOLJE: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you waive the reading of the Information,
MR. HOLJE: We’ll waive a formal reading of that, your
THE COURT: All right, and you anticipate that he’s
going to enter –
MR. HOLJE: Not guilty pleas today.
THE COURT: –-not guilty pleas.
MR. HOLJE: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Given that, I will arraign
Mr. Esquivel on these three counts, and enter a not guilty
plea on each of the three counts, and we’ll send it then to
Judge Connors for a pretrial conference. Now, you tell me
how far out that you want to go, that you think you can
(Counsel confer off the record)
MR. HOLJE: Something approximately a month down the
road, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, do you have a calendar? Do you want
MR. HOLJE: Yeah, if we could –
THE COURT: –-do you want to tell me when you want to
MR. HOLJE: Is there –
THE COURT: Tuesdays at 8:30.
MR. HOLJE: Okay. Okay, let’s go the 24 , if that’s
THE COURT: That’s fine, isn’t it?
MR. LYON: That’s agreeable to the State, your Honor.
COURT CLERK: Is that April 24 ?
MR. HOLJE: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tuesday, April 24 th at 8:30 a.m. Judge
Connors is in courtroom No. 5. Thank you all very much.
MR. HOLJE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Court will be in recess. Thanks, Diane.
MR. LYON: Thank you for staying late.
STATE OF UTAH )
COUNTY OF UTAH )
I, Wendy Haws, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Utah, do hereby certify:
That this proceeding was transcribed under my direction
from the transmitter records made of these meetings.
That I have been authorized by Beverly Lowe to prepare
said transcript, as an independent contractor working under
her court reporter’s license, appropriately authorized under
That this transcript is full, true, correct, and contains
all of the evidence and all matters to which the same related
which were audible through said recording.
I further certify that I am not interested in the outcome
That certain parties were not identified in the record, and
therefore, the name associated with the statement may not be
the correct name as to the speaker.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 21 st day of July 2012.
My commission expires:
January 12, 2016
Wendy Haws, CCT
Residing in Utah County
Beverly Lowe, CCR/CCT
In a development which is routine for court cases of this kind but sure to be annoying for Andy Esquivel, the court has ordered Andy to hand over a comprehensive list (and copies) of all the documents he intends to use as defense evidence at trial, a list of all witnesses, their relationship to him, their contact information, a full accounting of any financial compensation they are receiving in exchange for their testimony, a list of all expert witnesses, their credentials, copies and photographs of all exhibits, and a detailed explanation of their pertinence to the case…or to provide proof that he is in fact insane.
Andy has been bragging ever since he was indicted that he had mountains of evidence which would prove him innocent and that he would bring an army of witnesses with him to trial. He must now provide the court with a full list of such or he will be forbidden from using any of them at trial.
On Tuesday, June 19th, 2012, Judge David Connors set a date for the trial of Andres “Andy” Esquivel (aka – Chicho) for Wednesday, Octber 24th, through Friday, October 26th, of 2012. There will be a three (3) day jury trial of Andy Esquivel preceded buy a pre-trial hearing on August 14th. Andy will represent himself at trial.
As always an update of the current status of the case can be found here [PDF].
In related news, Andy Esquivel’s psychotic convicted felon mother called his family this week saying that several of Andy’s cousins will be going to jail for posting and liking a link to this website on Facebook. She claimed that the prosecutor in Andy’s fraud trial on Tuesday decided to drop the charges against Andy and instead file charges against them and everyone associated with this website. This was obviously a complete falsehood.
First of all, the first amendment is pretty clear about freedom of speech, and Colorado law is even more strict than the first amendment. Second, slander isn’t a criminal offense, and cannot therefore be punished by time in prison. Third, if a civil action were brought, it would be in the state of the accused. Fourth, any civil action would be outside the scope of action of the prosecutor in Andy’s fraud trial. Fifth, everything posted on this website is a matter of public record and is therefore not only true, but protected by the Freedom of Information act and the first amendment. Finally, Andy Esquivel has been threatening to have his accusers and those of us who have exposed his various scams thrown in jail for years with no effect. The fact that he’s still throwing out hollow threats and even recruiting his crazy mother to help shows how desperate he is.
Andy Esquivel is a sad little man. He’s got six kids by three different mothers, owes back child support on two, lost a third because of neglect, and will probably be in prison when the 6th is born. He preaches about God, but never has the world seen a more godless individual. The only thing we as a society can do is to pray for his soul and hope that he learns his lesson in prison.
Here’s the latest video from the morons who follow Andy Esquivel from state to state. It’s absolutely HILARIOUS!!!
The basic premise of this video, if you watch the whole thing, is that Andy started a club called “Phe Playground” back in 2007 or something. The club was perfect for Xtagged because you could look out it’s windows and see people’s license plate numbers as they arrived (in the dark). My wife and I supposedly went to this club because I was a part of Xtagged (never paying a cover) and then I was supposedly “fired” form Xtagged by Allen Brady in 2007 never to return. Andy had great times running Playground and it had tremendous potential, but I (Daryl Acumen) had it shut down. Now that Shar Jenkins has gone to the Utah SEC (Actually the Utah Department of Securities) and told them the truth, the securities fraud case against Andy is in the toilet and Xtagged and Playground will be returning to Utah! People will fly from miles around to see the new club and Andy and Shar will be famous.
The TRUTH is much different.
Playground started life as Suede, a great Jazz club in Park City. When Suede finally closed it’s doors after years in business, a couple of guys bought the lease and the liquor license with money loaned to them by their mother. The club was actually pretty cool, but never really took off. Early on, Andy Esquivel approached the new owners about Xtagged and said he was going to hold all sorts of huge Xtagged events in the venue to drive traffic. About this time same Andy approached me about having my website PartyUtah.com promote Xtagged and the Xtagged events. Even thought I didn’t think much of Xtagged (or Andy), I agreed because it would give me an excuse to meet the owners of the new Playground.
I went to the Playground twice. The first time was just to look around and to meet the owners. I guess Andy conned the owners into thinking I was somehow connected with him because he got really upset when I talked to them about my website on my own, saying I “embarrassed him” because he’d already hooked me up. I told Andy very plainly that although I appreciated the introduction, NOBODY represented PartyUtah.com but me and I would not under any circumstances allow him to “negotiate” some sort of relationship with a club on my behalf or allow him to interfere with my efforts to reach out to club owners.
The second event was supposed to be a big Xtagged party, but was in fact a complete bust. Andy bragged that he’d bought a dozen big screen TVs for the club, which I found suspicious, and brought one from home as an example. He had three or four friends in that night, but otherwise it was dead. At the back bar I remember most vividly being approached by Allen Brady, who confided that he was beginning to think Andy was a “fraud” and completely full of crap. I agreed, but didn’t say so publicly. All I said in reply that sometimes startups feel like cons in the beginning and that I was sure everything would work out just fine. I then spent some time talkign to DJ Panama and left when it was obvious that nobody would be showing up. This was the ONLY time I ever talked to Allen Brady about Xtagged at Playground. The idea that he somehow “fired” me from Xtagged that or any other night is ridiculous, since I already had a job and would NEVER have agreed to “sign up” for a venture like Xtagged to begin with (even if I didn’t suspect that it was a scam).
I never went to Playground again because I didn’t see a reason to. Photographer Eric Hamilton shot an event with Tommy Lee at the club a few months later and licensed the photos to Party Utah, but he later confessed that Andy had talked him into shooting for free in exchange for shares in his fake company. Somewhere in there Andy claims to have conned the owners of Playground into giving him 10% ownership of the club in exchange for a percentage of Xtagged. The terms of the agreement change depending on what year you ask Andy about the transaction – at one point he claimed to have given the owners of Playground exclusive rights to Xtagged in Utah, which of course he’d already sold to Club Bogeys in Ogden.
Playground lasted less than a year. They didn’t even survive long enough or make enough money to remove the “Suede” logo from the floor at the club’s entrance. It was a nice place with potential, but Park City is a tough market and most club owners in Utah over-estimate the revenue potential of their ventures and burn out before they really reach their stride.
The idea (blurted out in this video by Shar Jenkins as if it was an obvious fact) that I had something to do with Playground failing is ridiculous. The idea that Andy Esquivel could re-open the club is even more so! The DABC isn’t giving out new liquor licenses right now, and they CERTAINLY wouldn’t give a license to a convicted felon who’s on trial for securities fraud. Even if Andy COULD get a liquor license in Utah, he’s so broke that he could never afford the lease, much less the utilities and improvements required to open a club – he probably couldn’t even come up with the cash for the door cover without help from one of his brainless minions. If you want proof, look what happened to Andy’s crappy little attic office in Denver.
The new legal name of Xtagged is ‘111701135’ and it’s CEO is about to get a number of his own. My advice to Andy is to either take a plea bargain now, or prepare for a very long stay in Davis County Utah.
Here are Andy’s newest videos. These brainless rants were forwarded to so called “supporters” over the last few weeks and came to us because of a ‘fatal flaw’ in Digital Internet DNA technology which we were able to discover with the help of friends we have inside the CIA.
The first video is Andy Esquivel showing off many of his very fake products. It’s actually quite hilarious! Among the “inventions” he displays are the ridiculous “car cover” which is really a length of bubble wrap with an orange rope threaded through it. Noticably absent is the black 2012 Hyundai Veloster anti-spy wrap which Andy took a picture of and claimed was a prototype undergoign high-speed testing in Arizona.
Andy also displays an aluminum water bottle with a Buzz/Wiser sticker on it (the only one of it’s kind in the world). Once again absent is a sample ‘case’ of the energy drink which Andy claims to have sold thousands of. Notice how Andy keeps the water bottle in a protective case. This is to protect the only example of this fake energy drink every produced.
Andy also spends some time showing off the Samsung Galaxy tablet he purchased because he couldn’t afford an iPad. This time he doesn’t bother to don the magic fingernail polish however to show off the touchless typing capability.
Finally Andy shows off the e-cigarettes he bought in bulk from China and had private labeled. Again absent are the laser attachments which Andy pretended to have displayed at a grand launch in a casino with the imaginary supporter “Gary Thebus” looking on in amazement.
The second video is Andy trying to explain how a fight in Bountiful (which he plead guilty to disorderly conduct charges for) was actually part of a grand conspiracy theory involving shady characters in the Davis county government, or the FBI or something like that. It’s pretty funny too, especially the part where Andy claims he is too good to pay for his own bail and so was morally compelled to have Ron Kelsay and Alan Brady pay it for him.
Andy’s a pretty funny guy, but even funnier are brainless minions like Alan Brady and Ron Kelsay who follow him around as if he were Jim Jones. Hopefully Andy keeps posting videos like this because they’re helping prove what an idiot he is. Soon felony fraud charges will also show the world what a con he is on top of it.
This crazy, ranting email from Andy Esquivel is as much evidence of drug use as it is evidence that Andy is guilty of everything he’s charged of. No intelligent human being can read through this garbled mess and think anything other than “wow, this man is insane.”
With this email (sent to Xtagged “supporters”) Andy tries to explain in one twisted narrative the conspiracies that have brought him to this point – broke, being sued for $18,000 in back child support, unemployed, and on trial for felony securities fraud. If you can get through even half of this gibberish, you will be impressed with the extent of Andy’s psychosis.
It’s over for Daryl & Ryion this is only one of the emails below from many people that lost out because of these two men, Carlos Martinez SLC promoter Rick from playground has said Daryl manipulated him Constantine from world famous Harryos in park city did even better he told John Steer that Daryl did the same thing to 4 other Utah companies all these people will get there justice and now finally Shar, Cynthia, key, Sylvester etc all of you can stop saying I am crazy for not letting you civilly sue Chris & Kyle along with Daryl and Ryion, I was right about Chris E. so please just be patient please look Chris E. is CC you all need to understand Chris’s Gym promoted Xtagged for 2 years and Kyle called news, companies if it wasn’t for kyle I never would have talked to i-safe.org you all know the video of Johnathon king ex- F.B.I agent with i-safe.org that I told on January 2009 “they are going to try and bring Xtagged down” I told Allen what I was going to do and I said “We only have a few owners at the moment but I will bring more in to protect us, it’s not my fault Kyle brought Ryion in that’s how Daryl found his way in, Taylor was brought in also look at the time frame I brought Taylor in right at that time and Taylor brought in his good friend Jason just look at the time frame as a matter of fact I did not want Ryion I wanted Logan laws because of his father with pro image but Logan only had $2,500 so he partnerd with Ryion! You guys seen the pre-trial video Ryion says “Andy took money from a little boy a kid named Logan Laws” Ryion partnered with that little kid to begin with Ryion is just as manipulative as Daryl Acumen! Xtagged will win guys. When I told Andrew Couch (I have it recorded from 2008) “I could not merge Xtagged because of safety reasons” he got pissed because he wanted money but he could not attack me until Daryl told him about Ryion’s blog May/2009 look click here Daryl used to be with Xtagged 2006 but he got jealous because we was on the news not him so he quit but after the Fox13 interview he tried to come back Allen told him no. Daryl and Andrew Couch then plotted to use Ryion, kyle, and Chris why because Andrew Couch took the system to Mitch Thrower not fully knowing about the flaw in the system that’s why I could not finish patent because they were watching the filings you see patents are a rich mans why of coping your Ideas so if I would have went forward with that same patent I would have had to released the research of the system flaw that’s what busted Andrew Couch look his LinkedIn says past Director of business intelligence at Bump.com and now Mitch Thrower’s LinkedIn follows Allen Brady and John Steer he used to follow me and Steve but they told him I was going to do 15 to 25 years in prison can you blame the guy for unconnecting from our linkedIn Chris E. knows this I sent them a video showing Mitch Thrower was on mine and Steve’s LinkedIn and what did Daryl do manipulate again, Daryl tried to take what was rightfully ours and he is going down I was my own attorney at the beginning of this trial WHY so Daryl would strait up manipulate these guys and say Andy don’t have no money see he blew it all blah blah blah, now he is doing it again “Andy don’t have a lawyer” I have already spent $14,000 on attorney & ten trips to Utah. Why did I take plea in Bountiful to prove a point… Casey the prosecutor in Bountiful did not do a thing about the attempted kidnapping May/2009 where 20 people jumped us three because Casey believed we had hundreds of investor’s and he wanted us ran out of Bountiful, Casey called to see if Xtagged had a license to do business but he only called Utah! Xtagged was out of Wyoming, get it now Casey will look bad. Adam Sweet did not even know about our Wyoming paperwork he pretended he did at pre-trial but what Adam does not know is that Ryion Butcher wants to be a movie star Ryion has a modeling profile that’s how Daryl got to him “will be famous on tv if we bust Andy” but that backfired on Daryl because October 2011 Ryion called Ron our documentary cameraman and gave a phone interview “Ron I like you and I want you to come and film me” Ron then says prove it give me something! Ryion sent him a book written by Becky(Daryl) wait until you all see the book Becky wrote and sent to us a year earlier but that was not it Ryion then tells Ron the cameraman “OK here is the biggest evidence Adam Sweet has on Andy he never registered Xtagged” he did that phone interview Oct of 2011 and then Daryl manipulated Ron past to get Ryion to stop talking! Adam Sweet of the SEC acted like he knew the whole time about Wyoming Xtagged INC but at pretrial if you all watched Adam Sweet pre-trial video you seen Mr.Holje ask Adam who registered Xtagged in Denver Colorado you will see Adam stumble through paper work for a few minutes and nervously say Daryl A, Acumen what you guys don’t know is Allen brady and Steve Klemark and I got a call after our meeting with the SEC Judge because they did not want Adam Sweet in the meeting for him having me arrest for no reason Adam Sweet asked Allen, Steve and I to come back to the SEC office and meet with him we did I said nothing just sat down and recorded the meeting Adam sweet told us “I don’t know a Daryl Acumen” Allen was amazed Allen said “What I told you about Daryl then Adam says I don’t know who you are Allen I only talked to Andy’s attorney Leonard Martinez, Allen told Adam Sweet ‘You called me 5 times asking if I would go against Andy and I said no and you would hang up! Then Steve klemark started in on Adam Sweet, all recorded guys, you see why they don’t want trial. We than came back to Denver and went strait to Leonard Martinez and told him that Adam Sweet said he did not know Daryl Acumen I record Leonard also guys Leonard was amazed and said that’s a lie I told him about Daryl myself. Ryion even told Ron something weird is going on I called Adam Sweet to tell him that you and I have come to an agreement Andy will pay Kyle, Chris and I our money back and I don’t even want interest Ron, remember Ryion wants to be in the documentary Ron says lets get it done I will film me giving you checks but then Ryion says we can’t because the Davis prosecutor said no he won’t allow it Why because if it’s dropped Casey the Bountiful prosecutor is now in trouble ready for this, Mr. Holje and Casey are great friends… I recorded every meeting with Mr. Holje the last one Mr. Holje is yelling at me to take the plea of misdemeanors and no jail time get it (Buddies Casey & Holje) Chris E. got a copy of the email I sent Mr. Holje and the truth is if I would have taken the plea Mr. Holje is right it would not hurt my civil suit against platester/Bump.com and since we let Mr. Jenkins pay these men at court we would not owe them anything everybody wins in his book Casey now can say see he was guilty that’s why Mr. Holje was forcing the plea on me I have a watch cam of all my meetings with Mr. Holje. Karma is my life guys I will prove it now ask Chris E. he got a copy of the email I sent Mr.Holje when I fired him I told him in the email “I can not do that because if I leave Kyle a man that helped me for two years hanging out to dry it will come back on me through karma because Steve, Sylvester, Key, Shar, Cory etc were going to sue them Kyle never should have sent an email that read ” I agree with everything Daryl and Ryion say about Wiser e-cig and the other fake companies with hundreds of investors! He is brain washed guys Kyle even sat down with our patent attorney, so to make this short I fired Mr. Holje to protect Chris and Kyle for my Karma. Now I will return to court representing my self again Why because I have all this evidence on video that’s why Brian Doubleday owns 20% of the movie rights this man is a movie genius he made Instinct that movie gave me so much in life Cuba Gooding JR I believe got an award for that guys I guarantee Brian will get a Pulitzer award for Xtagged movie, Facebook is getting sued Google it they are getting sued for their movie social network because it was 80% lies Xtagged is all on video since 2005 when it was Single & Dating Mr. Doubleday knows all of this look he is CC. Facebook is now in trouble with the SEC and everyone who invested is suing Facebook that’s why I never wanted to sell them pretty certificates that Allen Brady has had the whole time I wanted to hire Melissa Gar, Brian Davis worker you all remember Brian Davis the guy in Bountiful that lived in 1.6 million dollar house on hill next to the temple he sent Melissa Gar to me so they could handle INC, certificates, but then Ryion Butcher told us no don’t do that “I have a marketing degree guys” we all were there when Ryion said this at our sushi shop “I can sell Xtagged products an make us a lot of money” we only believed it because he was Kyle’s friend! The only reason Chris and Kyle don’t have paperwork like Allen Brady, Robert & Kim from playground is because they did not want to pay Jason web Xtagged Inc attorney $310 an hour to draw it up, Allen owned Bus company their lawyer did it for him not for free but you get what I mean Robert & Kim’s club lawyer did theirs. Chris and Kyle used that paperwork because Jason and another attorney emailed it to me
Screen-shots above are emails with Chris and Kyle’s paperwork from Utah Attorneys 02/04/2008! I want trial 100% but I don’t want Kyle and Chris to get in trouble they are manipulated by Daryl Acumen, ask Taylor Jones I asked if he could help save these men I have CC everyone because it’s all true look Taylor is in CC.
All this evidence is at http://www.diigo.com/user/xtagged you can find it on your own and that’s only 10% of evidence Mr. Holje told John Steer he did not want to see his evidence, that sent up red flags because he was helping his friend Casey the Bountiful prosecutor I paid $1,500 total for disorderly conduct! WHAT! “I CALLED THE POLICE GUYS” I am listed as the victim in Bountiful case report I have copy if needed media only they put no one was taken to the hospital John Steer was hit with a pool ball 14 times in the head that’s attempted murder I told Mr. Holje we were kidnapped he said why because they locked you in the store I said no Sir, because it was twenty men on three Why 20 to 3 because they were going to carry us out of there they just couldn’t believe we defended ourselves with 20 against 3, I have a recording of the fight on my old Samsung smart phone, he said let me see it, I said at trial you will he then keep billing me $200 an hour and said your not going to have enough money for the Davis court if you keep this up just take the plea of $300 and six months probation or else this is going to cost thousands, for a Disorderly conduct guys Mr. Superlawer.com ended up costing me $1,500 dollars and still had to plea a disorderly conduct that I never did in short don’t ever call 911 in bountiful because I did and it cost me $1,500 to call the Bountiful police, the men who moved all the furniture to jump us (I have video) that’s called premeditation and they unplugged the stores video cameras and please note the workers of hero’s computers where they jumped us never called 911 I did, it’s funny because Casey the bountiful prosecutor says to this day it was only four guys (I have a video of it) but never the less them four guys got a $300 fine That’s it! I paid $1,500 John Steer paid $180 fine and $5,000 bountiful hospital bill, yes Mr. Holje’s best friend Casey the Bountiful prosecutor showed us scammers and ran us out of town, only problem is we are not scammers and we did have INC, and where are the hundreds of investors we scammed so now what do they do.
Mr. Doubleday Sir, you know theirs to much to fit in this email but I only try to fulfill my Karma and guess what, I have done it now if trial proceeds I have done enough to warn Kyle & Chris here comes trial Sir get ready to film the trial in Utah. FYI the day you heard me out Brian for 5 hours and you did not ask for anything is the day I knew we had the right people for Xtagged movie here is some good news for you Sir, I will prove to you I am not about money rewrite our contract I am going to give your company 30% not 20% of documentary/movie royalties just promise you will tell the world everything Sir, Daryl Acumen used the internet as a weapon against all of us please tell the world. The other 20% is for my Xtagged team and the other 50% of course goes to karmacause.com
Andrew Couch got to see the big time with Mitch Thrower at first, and I almost lost everything but in the time of having nothing I invented so much more, so yes Andrew got to party and celebrate back then but the money clouded his mind and he just peeked… I on the other hand had nothing to cloud my mind and invented Buzz/wiser, Wisertechnology, Facebook apps just go look at www.Wisertechnology.com and see for yourselves that’s why I don’t want money in my account it’s that simple I will draw a salary from Karmacause.org that’s it! After everyone knows the truth they will trust www.Karmacause.org because it puts Digital fingerprints on everything and Steve Klemarks DigitalInternetDna.com will blow you all away that’s why he is CEO of WiserTechnology.com.
I will see you all when I come to Utah June 19th Dre, Zac, Rick Carlos all you guys that have recently email me just like Dre below’ I miss you to bro, none of this is your guys fault you did not abandon Xtagged Daryl is just evil and tried to steal your rightful blessing from God because I don’t know how I did all this all I know is that God does exist because before I could not live without my son Andres and my daughter Savannah ask John Steer he will tell you, my son and daughter was so proud of me in 2007 after Fox13 but now because of Daryl Acumen manipulating them with all these lies I have not seen them for three years… My son sent me an email 2 years ago that read ” You scammer why don’t you invent something that really works” my family says they think my ex wrote it not my son never the less I asked God to please give the strength to keep on inventing and oh boy he answered my prayers just look at us now Xooplay is not scam nothing is and with my prayers answered in full I knew I would see them soon that’s why I want trial over because I miss them dearly I just had to think of all children not just my own. Steve Klemark Denver P.D his father retired N.Y.P.D got so much research from these last two year that now I can say it will benefit our children 100% I just could not say anything, now you can see why… all I ask of you guys is to pray that I get to see Andres & Savannah soon because I don’t care about money just God.
P.s look at the way I write Ok that’s me Rebecca Dunn is the one that wrote all the text for Karmacause.com and Wisertecknology.com that’s a lot from her so please until a real investigation happens and don’t worry a real one is coming the SEC Judge told Allen Brady Aug, 02, 2011 he would start one as soon as Davis county case is over he told Allen that, so please everyone stop telling me that Daryl & Beckie are a Mother son team… Beckie told me that she was going to get Daryl for kicking her out of his home I believe at trial she will make good on that, if not and I am wrong that’s for God to judge not us. look at what I have been living and the proof of that is if we are in court and trial is coming 100% why still run slander/smear campaign to this day. Daryl and Ryion are so desperate they turned www.Xoutscams.com back on why when I am supposedly already caught! This is why, if Daryl and Ryion turn it off well they in a way turn of the brain washing machine right Chris E. you now why I truly fired Mr. Holje that’s why you are connected to all of us now and thank God.
God bless Us All! Dre see you soon…
In this email sent to Xtagged “supporters,” Andy Esquivel rails on his own attorney, alleging collusion and misdealing. He continues to claim that his attorney somehow forced him to accept plea deals in Bountiful and American Fork, as if that were possible. He again brags about the law enforcement connections he supposedly has amassed and tries to make his supporters believe that these “connections” will somehow shield him from the criminal charges he now faces.
Ever since we confronted Mr. Holje about Casey the Bountiful prosecutor and him being friends he has had our emails blocked as spam attachment 3&4;
Mr. Holje forced both pleas all you have to do to confirm this is get all court videos/transcripts, Ryion & Daryl told Bountiful prosecutor April, 29, 2009 we had hundreds of investors we scammed that’s why prosecutor had us ran out of Bountiful… As you see it was all a lie and that’s why they tried to force plea on me again for the third time it’s just this time I had to protect Chris & Kyle because I could not show them this stuff back then I was told not to…
Mr. Martinez 303.623.3300 our Denver Attorney since April of 2010 knew all of this the whole time he says this calls for an F.B.I investigation Steve & his Father of N.Y.P.D have went to the F.B.I that why I now dare to release these video they were marked private. Xtagged system is worth billions and in the last email about Adam Sweet from the SEC I showed you how he lied about Daryl Acumen Leonard also confirmed in his video that Adam Sweet was not being truthful.
Now do you get why Mr. Brian Doubleday is producing this movie it’s big we have a meeting with Mark Flores the attorney that sued Bountiful for Bruce Harper he was Xtagged supporter his plate wasn’t crooked he had an Xtagged bumper sticker on his car! They Attacked Bruce May, 2009 and us May of 2009 get it the police was to run Xtagged out of town because Casey Bountiful prosecutor just believed Ryion and Daryl did not check it out now they don’t know what to do…
From: Karma Cause <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Digital I-D filed <email@example.com>; Brian Doubleday <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Steve K <email@example.com>; Alll <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is one of the emails from my $200 an hr lawyer.
Look at the date it was before pre-trial they made me plea of misdemeanors with no jail & I said no and then Ryion, kyle & Chris committed perjury 22 times we stopped counting at 22 I know their is more, after I posted some of the lies and my attorney video of Leonard Martinez Chris E. one of the plaintiffs had a change of heart and now is connected to Steve Klemarks police LinkedIn and John’s all of us http://www.linkedin.com/in/xrazaWWW.KARMACAUSE.INFO
Andres Esquivel KarmaCause CEO:
Sent with my Xraza-phone
Brian I know this is blowing your mind I have attached commitment I signed with you 05/04/2009, please look at the date on email from Microsoft to Klye attachment 3 same day I signed with you all this is happening because Xtagged is worth billions if you watched the Facebook movie The Social Network you will see that even the treasurer of the U.S laughed when he was told Facebook would be worth millions. And know Daryl sent emails to my family saying that they are going to pull my bail on Tuesday I guess they really want to force the plea on meI told my family Daryl just wants them to be scared for me and talk me into taking the plea my family did not know everything about my evidence so ya can’t blame them at all… As you can see Brian Doubleday is CC: and as a movie maker he knows how much that would build the Xtagged movie “Dam it! Andy won’t take the plea lets pull his bail” I would go for my cause in a heart beat, unfortunately my family already has copies of the 22 perjury emails on the plaintiffs and would be knocking on the city hall doors instantly…
It works like this usually the prosecutor will let you sit in jail to force you to take plea, oh and they tried to put me in jail wait until you hear about that! But jail did not work because the other owners of Xtagged and my family bailed me out so they have Daryl start new website Dec, 05, 2011 in Ryions name and turn up the lies to try and force me to take plea unforgivably on their behalf that backfired on them because Steve’s wife tried to commit suicide thinking her husband really scammed hundreds of people for millions of dollars Amanda Klemark 3 days in Denver hospital and when I told Mr. Holje that he did not care I have video of it… That’s why Steve will not talk to anyone now but the Judge if you look at screenshot of Steve’s Facebook where Amanda wrote having a wonderful day because Steve’s father retired N.Y.P.D is back in town Steve does not want to say anything else until he takes the Stand. Allen Brady talked to attorney Mark Flores and was told be careful you could be in danger just last week.
P.s I don’t believe we will get in to Utah early enough to meet with you tomorrow but I will call your office at 1:30pm I can meet with you on Tuesday my court is at 8:30am anytime after that would be great Ron will be filming some more witnesses so I can meet with you anytime Tuesday I have to get back to Denver Wednesday I have two kids that I need to take care of while my mom is at work and my girl is in chief school I wish I could stay longer but my family calls, it was nice speaking with you Mr. Holje would not contact you now I know why! He charges $200 an hour and would not due what I asked him for, for $50 bucks an hour I would call the person daddy and do everything I was asked as long as it was legal happy fathers day see you soon…
On June 7th Judge Connors and prosecutor Lyon officially accepted Michael Holje’s motion to be released as Andy Esquivel’s attorney in fraud case#111701135. As of yesterday therefore, Andy Esquivel is officially without legal representation. The question remains whether or not Andy will accept help of a public defender. Odds are he will because he’s too broke to hire another attorney. Of course there’s always the possibility that Andy will try to represent himself with that box full of evidence he claims to have, but I doubt he’s that stupid. Andy knows he’s guilty and representing himself at trial would only hasten the prosecution’s case.
The Pre-trial hearing in in a week and my guess is that Andy will ask for another extension to give him time to think. An accelerated trial would be a disaster for Andy, as he would at minimum be found guilty and be ordered to pay Ryion, Kyle and Chris back in full. As always the full case update can be found here [PDF].
If so, then time is running short. Nobody has filed a motion with the court yet to become Andy’s new attorney and the pre-trial hearing is in two weeks. From this side of the fence, Andy’s situation looks pretty bleak. Unless one of the prosecutions witnesses gets hit by a bus or there’s a fire and all the evidence against Andy gets destroyed, he’s doomed.
Unfortunately for Andy, he can’t take a plea deal because it would require him to pay back Ryion, Kyle and Chris before the 19th in cash or certified funds. Andy can’t go forward without an attorney unless he’s actually thinking of representing himself. He seems to think he has enough “evidence” to go forward alone, but I don’t think he’s stupid enough to try. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
The new film will cover the story of Xtagged from it’s roots in ham radio in the 1950s all the way up to Andy Esquivel’s pending criminal trial and ultimate conviction on securities fraud charges. Comedian Carlos Mecca has reportedly agreed to play the roll of Andy Esquivel in the new film, which will no doubt be directed by Ron Kelsay.
In other news, Andy Esquivel is running from the Colorado Office of Recovery Services which is trying to get back child-support from him for the two kids he abandoned in Utah. Since Andy is currently unemployed, hasn’t worked in over a decade, and is about to be charged with fraud, they’re finding it difficult to get Andy to own up to his parental responsibilities. Andy hasn’t paid a dime in child support in years.
Andy now claims that the real roots of Xtagged were in Ham Radio. He’s come to this conclusion because he noticed one day that Shar Jenkins’ father Silvester C. Jenkins, who is apparently a Ham radio enthusiast, has a personalized license plate with his call leters on it. This has been a practice of HAM radio enthusiasts for years, and therefore Andy concludes that it must have been his inspiration for Xtagged!
Andy’s pre-trial hearing was held yesterday at 8:34am. We don’t have any updates on the hearing yet, but will post details once the court records are updated.