What exactly were F.M. Bonsall's duties while he was an independent contractor to PSI TECH, Inc.?

Taken from an actual court transcript: Bonsall in his own words, under direct examination, while under oath, in The Superior Court of California on October 26, 1999:

NO. SC 047156

Q. Were you ever employed by PSI TECH?

Bonsall: I was an independent contractor to PSI TECH.

Q. By Mr. Price: When were you hired or retained as an independent contract to PSI TECH?

Bonsall: I believe the date was the first of April, 1997.

Q. What was the purpose of your retention, Sir, if you know?

Mr. Orchon: Objection; Calls for speculation.

The Court: Can you ask more generally about the terms of his employment?

Q. By Mr. Price: Were you informed as to why you were retained, Sir?

Bonsall: I was hired to fulfill a need at PSI TECH to oversee the distribution of the Technical Remote Viewing Video Tapes.

Q. Was this as of April 1st, 1997, Sir?

Bonsall: Yes. I began April 1st, 1997.

Q. Who informed you of this purpose?

Bonsall: That would have been Mr. Dames and Ms. Dourif.

Q. By Mr. Price: Sir, what were your duties with PSI TECH when you were hired on?

Mr. Orchon: Objection: Asked and answered.

The Court: Overruled.

Bonsall: My duties were to build the infrastructure of a distribution system to handle orders and to deliver a product.

Q. Are you still employed by PSI TECH today?

Bonsall: No.

Q. When did you leave PSI TECH?

Bonsall: My last day with PSI TECH, my last day paid with PSI TECH was I believe the 30th of April, 1999.

Q. So is it fair to say you were there a little over two years, then?

Bonsall: Yes, that is accurate.

Q. Did your job responsibilities change over time?

Bonsall: No. I wouldn't characterize it as a change. My primary duties during the work day was as I earlier stated.

Note: Several months after the above court testimony was recorded, F.M. Bonsall started promoting false biographical information pertaining to himself and his work duties at PSI TECH. This information is not factual and is completely disavowed by PSI TECH's President (who originally hired Mr. Bonsall.) It is our hope that others are not "taken in" or harmed by this man. Unfortunately, the information remains posted on the internet (including the "Remote Viewing Conference" web site, which continues to promote the following misleading background information):

"F.M. was hired as a primary Remote Viewer and Chief Operating Officer of PSI TECH. F.M. continued to train for 2_1/2 years at PSI TECH and in that time in addition to a regular training program he participated in all company RV projects, assisted in the instruction of new Remote Viewers and he was the associate producer of the PSI TECH Remote Viewing training tapes."

Upon being officially notified that Bonsall, the former PSI TECH employee, had submitted a false record of his employment and had recently stolen company property, a representative of IRVA replied with the following:

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2000 23:37:17 +0000
"We cannot, nor do we feel it is our duty to, screen the claims of presenters or other persons about themselves for accuracy or factuality."

Fortunately for those who have been victimized, the search for justice carries on, and the truth continues to come out in court.

June 18, 2002 Update:
PSI TECH Awarded Judgment Against F.M. Bonsall (click here)

Past History of Theft: PSI TECH's Customer List Stolen by F.M. Bonsall and Used to Promote his Company "Percept."

In May of 1999, shortly after Bonsall's position at PSI TECH was terminated, PSI TECH began receiving complaint letters from angry customers who received a lengthy "Percept" spam advertisement from F.M. Bonsall in their e-mail. Ed Dames' response to the customers can be seen at the bottom.

Subject: Is 'Percept' sanctioned by Psi-tech?
Date: 5/19/99 10:58:22 PM

I got this email SPAM today, and I thought it a bit odd. Ed, if this company is stealing your techniques, I wanted you to be aware of it incase you need to take legal action against him. He uses TRV by name, dont you have that copyrighted? If this company is legit, then great. Im all for teaching the world this stuff, but if not, I dont want anyone ripping off all the work you guys have done.

-Nolan

FORWARDED MESSAGE:

"PERCEPT
8909 W. Olympic Blvd. #xxx
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
T (310) 360-xxxx
T (877) 878-xxxx
F (310) 360-xxxx"

"Welcome to Percept"

*snip*

"F.M. Bonsall was trained in Technical Remote Viewing in January 1997..."

(Spam Ad Removed)


PSI TECH's Response:

Subject: TRV (Remote Viewing) Instruction at Percept
Date: 5/20/99 1:03:19 PM

My apologies to all who have received the above-referenced SPAM.

A former PSI TECH independent contractor was involved in the theft of company information.
He is not a TRV teacher, and we are persuing legal recourse.

Again, my apologies to all spamees.

Ed Dames

Lawsuit Against Frederic (F.M.) Bonsall

  • 1. Fraud and Deceit
  • 2. Unjust Enrichment
  • 3. Conversion
  • 4. Slander
  • 5. Libel

    • June 19, 2001




    MEMO:

    June 19, 2001

    PSI TECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.

    Re: Jonina Dourif vs. F.M. Bonsall (a 2nd lawsuit)


    This is a second lawsuit regarding the theft which occurred last year at Joni's Beverly Hills residence and PSI TECH's training office. This lawsuit was recently served on F.M. Bonsall, a former PSI TECH employee who was responsible for the unauthorized entry into her home while she was out of town. Bonsall was the individual who personally removed 30 boxes of PSI TECH files along with numerous other personal property items.

    This latest lawsuit is seeking both general and punitive damages not only for the theft but also for defamation and fraud committed by Bonsall and his co-defendants for their outrageous behavior committed against Joni personally.

    I should comment that our adversaries would like the public to believe PSI TECH is heavy handed and lawsuit happy, but this is really not the case. It is not PSI TECH's policy nor mine personally to file lawsuits to resolve disputes. In my business career spanning the last 25 years I have found it necessary to file only one lawsuit. Litigation is costly in both time and money, and is usually not worth the hassle. However this situation (the theft of PSI TECH's and Joni's personal property) is so outrageous that we really had no other way to right the wrong. The public has not been made aware of all the facts in this case, and only gets deceptive spin from the defendants. I have made many appeals over the last year to the defendants to avoid litigation by simply returning the property, and at each attempt I have been rebuffed with arrogant disdain.

    It seems Mr Bonsall and his co-defendant do not wish to do the right thing and so the only way to get their attention is with a lawsuit. O.K. Mr. Bonsall, and Mr. Dames, the ball is in your court again!

    As always, PSI TECH remains vigorous in its quest to promote its mission and will do whatever is necessary to protect its intellectual property and business interests.




    Developments and announcements:

    7/23/02   Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. New!
    6/18/02   PSI TECH Awarded Judgment Against F.M. Bonsall.
    6/15/01   PSI TECH Awarded $2 Million Judgment Against Ed Dames
    2/15/01   Response to Ed Dames' Personal Attacks on PSI TECH management
    2/09/01   PSI TECH Sues Former Employees
    10/09/00 Press Release Regarding Theft of Company Property by F.M. Bonsall



    << Back