An unauthorized collection of the records of Alternate Energy Holdings, inc., its principals and subsidiaries, and their antics, trials, and tribulations

Former AEHI CEO Don Gillispie

Former AEHI CEO Don Gillispie
OK, everyone, I've got to step out for just a minute. I'll be right back, I promise!

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

SEC vs AEHI Case Update: Amicus Cuckoo Briefs; Don Gillispie, Jennifer Ransom, and AEHI's Responses Due Tomorrow

Alternate Energy Holdings, its CEO Don Gillispie, and Key Senior Executive Vice President Awaiting Reinstatement and Access to Company Credit Card Jennifer Ransom's Responses to the SEC Complaint are due tomorrow, February 10th. They will be posted here as soon as they are available, with analysis and snark following shortly thereafter.

In other case news:

All Rise! Hear Ye!  Hear Ye! Oyez!, etc., etc....
Comes now some Whack Job another typical AEHI shareholder, filing two more hilarious amicus curiae cuckoo briefs (here and here)with the US District Court in the SEC's case against AEHI.  These briefs were filed February 7th and 8th by someone who claims to hold the "Office of the Constitutional Law Advocate for the People," weighing in from his Kangaroo Court Compound in Pennsylvania.  In his briefs,  "Constitutional Law Advocate" (and owner of 30,000 AEHI shares) Jesse Matlock Matlack Townsley, Jr. claims the SEC itself  is unconstituional and urges the court to nullify it and its actions, or "..the People will be forced to take action to alter or abolish this National Government directly, which could lead to major confrontations and serious bloodshed."

Copies of amicus curiae cuckoo briefs

Wowsers!  He strenuously objects to the SEC case! 

What would drive this poor shareholder our learned constitutional scholar to file such a drastic and inflammatory brief? (Other than those 30,000 shares, that is.)  Perhaps he has it in for the SEC after his little brush with them in 1995. Or maybe it's because of this other little SEC dustup in 2005, related to this brouhaha with the National Futures Association. (hearing results here).  Here are some excerpts, which will sound strangely familiar to those who have been following AEHI all along:

Verrry Interesting.

Here is a posting signed by a "Jesse Townsley" discussing how (like Don and his Dry Reactor Design) he created the "profession" of "Constitutional Law Advocate" out of thin air (and a bit of stretching the Declaration of Independence):

Posted by Jesse Townsley on 8/31/2010 7:11:28 AM
If we are waiting for the citizenry to wake up and become truly patriotic Americans in the mold that was originally created by our founding documents, I am afraid we will be waiting until hell literally freezes over.
The fact is that the hearts and minds of most Americans leans to how much largesse they can derive from the public treasury, and freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility are subjects quite foreign to their belief systems.
However, we are still technically a constitutional republic, with three departments of government: i.e. executive, legislative, and judicial, each of which is supposed to watch the others closely for signs of usurpation of powers not granted to them. This responsibility has been shirked by each, and so we have no one in authority who is watching our backs. But, the courts are derived directly from the Constitution, and each judge swears an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. We need to force them to do it.
I have created a new profession which I have named "Constitutional Law Advocate". This is a kind of "super lawyer" who has shunned the present day laws schools in favor of wielding the law of the Constitution as a weapon. While this post was not described in the Constitution per se, its need can be implied from the mandate in the Declaration giving the People the right to throw out any government that does not protect their Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I am currently testing this concept in three lawsuits I have instigated against the Pennsylvania DOT regarding the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code. I believe the Code is illegal because it takes away the right of citizen-drivers to make rational decisions and substitutes the judgment of "law enforcement" in its place. This very action reduces driver responsibility and increases the accident rate, among other evil results. My plan is to force the Judge in the appeals court to accept that he must, under his own oath, pay heed to his responsibility to protect the Rights of the People, and not to protect the power of the government.
I have three cases scheduled to be heard on September 28th. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles my attack on what amounts, at the present time, to a 'kangaroo court'.
Wish me luck!

Verrry Interesting.....


  1. Typical AEHI investor indeed! "Me thinks", you are giving them way too much credit.

  2. Jesse is on the right track, unlike the author of this quack blog....

  3. The "CLA" lives not too far from a place where nullification was once attempted. Abe Lincoln gave a little talk there after it was over. He might want to read about it in his constitutional studies.