Wednesday, April 11, 2007

In the News and in the Forums

Today the rest of the world heard a little bit about Steorn through Engadget and Digg. Both sites featured the news that Steorn will be releasing an update this Friday. My hunch is that the actual news will make an even bigger splash.

Also, in the forums today Sean had some more information to share:

I have always stated that the ONLY way to confirm we have what we claim to have is a full evaluation by experts, this is what the Jury are up to. The reason for the July demo will be addressed in the video update on Friday.
It's nice to know that we'll learn something new on Friday! Also, Sean made this comment in response to Kent767's inquiry about a major investor in Steorn:
The Patmore Group that is a Steorn shareholder is not an Irish company and hence you will not find them on
If someone does dig up more information about the Patmore Group, we'd all be very interested in hearing about it. Some more notable quotes from Sean:
When the documentary is released I think that you get a greater understanding of why we felt that we had no other choice but to take this route, until then you can take my word for it, or not.
EarthTech International was brought up today in the forums. Here's what Sean had to say about the company:
I must state the I have a huge respect for EarthTech, we do have an NDA in place with them and I am sure we will discuss ways to work together. I should also point out that this is nothing more than an NDA and they have in no way endorsed our technology, I state this simply to let you know that we are very interested in getting their views on what we are doing.
Dr. Harold Puthoff is the CEO of ETI. We've seen that name floated around before, now we know that at least something is going on between the two companies.

And a final note, the Steorn's Orbo blog has moved to a new domain. All of us bloggers are careful not to upset Mr. McCarthy.


Anonymous said...

Isn't Harold Puthoff that guy who 'verified' that Uri Gellar had psychic powers?

Tundrabog said...

Topic: Steorn Nominees

Today’s topic is not controversial. Well, at least I ‘think’ it’s not controversial, but I’ve been wrong before… Lol.

There is a company called Steorn Nominees. According to the Annual Return filed with the Companies Registration Office, it was formed on August 18, 2006. It has zero costs, capital and employees. Its only asset is two ordinary shares valued at 1 Euro each. Both shares are owned by Steorn Ltd. In other words, Steorn Nominees is wholly owned by Steorn Ltd. Michael Daly and Sean McCarthy are the Directors of Steorn Nominees.

When I first saw the financials, Steorn Nominees seemed like a useless appendage that did nothing. Sean McCarthy stated that Steorn Nominees is a holding company for Orbo. That makes sense. Orbo has not yet been required to submit financials.

The normal purposes of a holding company such as Steorn Nominees are;

1. Steorn Nominees directors can make decisions about Orbo without approval of Steorn Ltd. shareholders.
2. If Orbo becomes bankrupt, the Steorn Nominees holding company provides a measure of risk protection for Steorn Ltd.
3. There may be financial benefits to Steorn Nominees in the form of tax consolidation, tax-free dividends and the ability to share operating losses.
4. Steorn Nominees can buy stock, invest in businesses and do other financial transactions that don’t involve Orbo.

The only irregularity I found in the 2005 financial statement is that most things are correctly labeled 2005, except the titles on three pages which incorrectly say 2004. Someone did a sloppy cut and paste job.

The Steorn Nominees 2005 Annual Return and 2005 Financial Statement were not audited.

How difficult is it to form a holding company?

It’s very easy to do. For example, a U.K. firm called Coddan offers their services to register a holding company for 52 pounds. They provide the forms for a Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association, Minutes of the First Meeting of Directors, Share Certificates and Company Register.

Note: While I have some knowledge on financial matters such as this, I’m not an expert. Corrections are welcome.

Anonymous said...

yes, he's a pretty controversial scientist, he's pretty out there, but he's actually done a few good things for science too.


Anonymous said...

Here is a little more info on nominee companies and what makes them special:

Anonymous said...

Well looking at the "Stressful" thread, I think it is safe to say that Sean is loosing it. He has become defensive to the point of paranoia. Kent767 is asking simple, reasonable questions (IMO) and Sean is accusing him of 'spin'. (Seans new favorite word it seems)

I guess when you have something to hide, every question becomes a threat, huh Sean?

Tundrabog said...

Good find on the nominees information! I wonder who the offshore investor could be? All Steorn shareholders except Patmore Group are Irish. Is Patmore Group the controlling entity behind Steorn? None of the filed reports suggest this.

Perhaps it's Stembridge Ltd and Porema Ltd, the original subscribers of Steorn Ltd? Records show that they are Irish though so I doubt that's the case.

Some more digging is required.

Anonymous said...

I do think its a little fishy, I'm not sure Its enough to flat out say there's anything there, but I'm curious why he didn't answer such a simple question. Maybe we need to ask ETI themselves?


Tundrabog said...

What do folks think the odds are that the 'specifications' promised at the end of Q1 2007 won't be delivered by Steorn in the Friday the 13 information release?

nleseul said...

Steorn is supposed to be working with a company in the Netherlands, right? Maybe that's a potential candidate for an "offshore investor," if one exists.

Tundrabog said...


Aye, that's possible. I'm still absorbing the whole concept of the Nominee structure. The offshore entity could be an investor or it could be a company submitting invoices to Steorn.

Reading various websites suggests that the Nominee structure is geared towards not attracting the interest of tax authorities and maintaining confidentiality.

One quote is "There is no necessity to declare the relationship between the Nominee Company and the offshore principal."

Another quote... "This is much less likely to attract their (tax authorities) interest than a zero-tax company. If questions are asked by the tax authorities about the structure, the Nominee Agreement between the Nominee Company and the Offshore Company provides sufficient protection."

Nleseul... thanks for the links. Do you have similar information from before 2004?

Anonymous said...

ETI employee here. Sean basically summed it up. We knew about them (applied for the jury even) but they didn't know about us until rather recently. We signed an NDA and as Ping was so kind to already mention, we are members of the SPDC. We are just as impatient as everyone else for information.

nleseul said...

No, 2004 is as early as I went, I'm afraid. I think people went over the earlier ones way back in the early days of the forum, so I didn't bother. If you think it would help the accuracy of your analysis, I'd be willing to grab some of the earlier documents as well.

Anonymous said...

is it just me, or did the "stressful" thread just disappear?

Tundrabog said...


Earlier documents would help. I would have avoided the 2004 BES assumption since that investment would've shown up in earlier years.

@eti employee

It's good to meet you. The lack of information is a frustration to many.

Anonymous said...

Hey Thicket,

I read your posts on FizzX as well.

Have you considered the "The Sunday Business Post" article from last year? The one where Steorn claimed they were working on a kinetic microgenerator, like in watch batteries.

Could that claim have been made to appease the authorities in some way?

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nleseul said...

Sigh. No, the "stressful" thread did not disappear. It's right where it's always been. It's just sliding off the page because no one's posting in it.

Goddess, you conspiracy theorists sure are jumpy sometimes.

Tundrabog said...

Lol... It's been a while since I read The Sunday Business Post article.

Here are some key excerpts from the mouth of Sean McCarthy.

"Steorn employs 16 people designing its products, which are manufactured by a partner company in Holland and shipped back to Dublin for testing."

Gosh Sean. There are products? Really?

"The firm is also in the process of raising further investment, but McCarthy would not comment on the amount of funding required."

But later you said the exact opposite, Sean.

"Sean McCarthy, the cofounder and chief executive of Steorn, said the firm’s products were based on the same principle as kinetic energy generators in watches. The products should be ready by the summer of 2007."

Tick, tick, tick... conventional watches are ticking. Summer 2007 is almost here.

Yes, I know that Sean McCarthy later said that this interview was part of a 'crisis management plan' to prevent a leak of the free energy claim.

My opinion is that this is another example of Sean McCarthy, the bullshitter. He said these things with a straight face and they got published.

I don't think there was any appeasement of authorities involved. I think it's another example of Sean's April 15 is the end of the first quarter, a 550 BHP motor, and magnets at the speed of artillery shells.

Hmmmm... maybe I should start a Sean BS list... hehe.

JTerry said...

Hmm, for some reason, my posts have a hard time coming through. Anyway, a quick word on the Nominee holding company. I appreciated Tundrabog's comments (Thickett, right?) and his research. Although he claims not to have any expertise in these areas, he really does a magnificent job.

A few words on some features of a generic Nominee holding company:

-It will act on behalf of some unknown principle entity that is usually located offshore; likely locales being the BVI or Isle of Man, although it could be in any number of other places.

-The anonymity of the principle entity is virtually guaranteed in the nominee arrangement; so it's going to be very, very difficult to find out the name unless Sean just tells you. Even then, you may never discover the names of the actual offshore owners. This, of course, gives the owners a cloak of invisibility should it ever come to light that Steorn's alleged device is just blue sky. They would not suffer the great embarrasment of being affiliated with an otherwise known impossible proposition.

-Usually, and I could be wrong on this, but both the offshore and onshore companies cannot trade or engage in the material substance of their businesses in their country of incorporation. They could, however, do such things as open a bank account to pay expenses or hire a local person as a receptionist; that is, such incidental business necessities that are also essential to the operation of the business.

-Assets are owned by the offshore, although the nominee may sell physical goods on it's behalf. The cash from such transactions goes to the offshore, not the nominee.

-The offshore is usually not subject to tax in the country where the activity took place. The nominee holding corp will be subject to tax as it usually takes a fee for its services.

Of course, European entities love offshore arrangements because the tax laws in Europe are so incredibly oppressive. Look at the recent Johnny Hallyday episode in France for exactly how oppressive these tax regimes truly are. Generally, such arrangements, while always raising the spectre of a tax avoidance scheme, are not either sensational or uncommon.

What I am really interested in uncovering Thickett, if possible, is the extent to which Steorn has or intends to create a MLM plan. The use of a BES may be one indicia of a MLM scheme, although it is certainly not dispositive on the issue.

Have you found any indication that Steorn is formulating a MLM plan?

Anonymous said...

Thicket - Hmmmm... maybe I should start a Sean BS list... hehe.

No need. Just go here


Seriously though, I think a list would be good (and long)

Tundrabog said...

@15 India Street

Thanks for the Dutch info mijn vriend.


Wow... that's great info. With your permission, I'd like to incorporate it into one of my financial topics, with proper credit of course.


Tundrabog said...

I've found no indication of a Multi Level Marketing plan, either the legitimate variety or the illegal pyramiding scheme.

Anonymous said...

Who worte this?


Anonymous said...


just because we dont' see any companies from holland on their stockholders list doesn't mean they aren't involved with one.

Is it a requirement that a manufacturer actually own stock in your company to be working with you?

Maybe I misread something?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Who worte this?


April 12, 2007 12:33 PM

Wow! A genius, who had to look up what the word 'crank' means!

Anonymous said...

Sorry Crank, guess I should have included these and maybe this,

Anonymous said...

Hello Kent

You're correct. Just because we haven't found any information yet doesn't mean that Steorn isn't involved with a Dutch company either as a manufacturer or as a shareholder.

Indeed, the existence of Steorn Nominees is excellent evidence that Steorn does have significant financial ties outside of Ireland.


JTerry said...

Thicket is spot on once again. If there was not a substantial, beneficial interest involved with Steorn, there would be no reason to have a Steorn Nominee group. Furthermore, given the prevalence of such arrangements in European business models, good practice and common sense begs us to conclude the very high likelyhood that the beneficial interest (the principal) is located offshore.

Now, here's an interesting question: Does a Netherlands based company qualify as an "offshore"? I seriously doubt it. The Netherlands is part of the EU, which would throw the beneficial interest back into the tangles of most of the EU tax laws. It is possible that the beneficial interest is a Dutch offshore company; again, incorporated in some region not affixed to the EU but closely aligned. In any case, I am not certain as to the answer on this point and would welcome clarification as the offshore question can often become extremely complicated.

Thicket; no problem with you using anything I post. I ask that you only provide a caveat stating something to the effect that nothing posted is done so for purposes of providing any sort of legal opinion nor should it be relied upon by any person in any context, particularly those seeking to establish offshore platforms. The information is provided for discussion purposes only in a theoritcal context and may be incomplete or inaccurate.

You don't want anyone relying on anything that appears here in establishing a business, etc. Sound ok? Also, no need to give me any credit for anything, I don't care. I'm only here because I'm interested in unravelling the Steorn business plan, which has so far eluded us.

JTerry said...

This just in from Skeptical on that "other" blog:

"Doug Natelson, Associate Professor, Houston, Texas.

He states in his blog that he communicated with Steorn last autumn but it came to nothing when "they did not come close to answering my questions about how their jury process was supposed to work". The questions not answered satisfactorily were (for example) "would scientists actually be able to play with the gadget in an off-site laboratory"; "did Steorn really mean that their machine produced energy, or were they trying to finesse conventional jargon by talking about 'coefficients of performance greater than one'?"

Does make the jury selection process seem a bit strange.

Somone else, in reply to the entry, says "... I actually was almost on this "jury" but had to decline when the oompah-loompah's started singing while I was reviewing Steorn's data". Of course this may not be true.


WOW; that is very, very interesting. If what this scientist says is true, then what the "non-believers" have been saying all along is just futher reinforced. Of course, come on now, most of the rational understand that there is no such thing as free energy, PPMs, etc. I would, however, be VERY interested in Steorn's response to this latest claim.

By the way, CRANK is a plant, let's all admit it.

Anonymous said...

so far the only group we know of outside of ireland is either ETI or the Patmore Group

We had an ETI guy here claiming to be SPDC, is anyone close to TX able to call their phone line and get an official answer? (Sorry anonymous poster, not that I don't trust you, but a phone conversation in this case would be much more definitive)

I highly doubt ETI has any financial ties w/ steorn, but as information regarding the Patmore Group is so 'limited' (heh), I think we should at least get some kind of official description from them, since sean wont.

Anonymous said...

On Thickets Web

Kent767 : troll

007 : That's rich coming from Mtr I.M.A Troll, Master of TrollS, Prince of Trollsville, Trolling County, Trolland.

Does anyone else hear Homer's voice when they read 007's response?

Maybe the voices are back and I need more meds?

Anonymous said...

A Dutch offshore company would be most likely incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba. That would be impossible to trace back to Steorn. Maybe if they used a law firm there it would show up but I doubt it.