Blog

As with my previous articles discussing what's missing from the latest Fireclean lawsuit, this one draws entirely upon Fireclean's motions and other court filings in their lawsuit against George Fennell, as well as their lawsuits against me. In other words, don't take my word for it - take theirs. Please download the linked documents and draw your own conclusions based on Fireclean's statements. At the end of this article, I will leave you with a few questions. According to their lawsuit, Fireclean submitted samples of their product to various laboratories for… Read More

As voluminous as the latest Fireclean lawsuit is at 50 pages of complaint and 200 pages of exhibits, what's most notable is not what is in the suit, but what is not in the suit. Put more precisely, what is no longer in the suit is what really caught my attention. On March 17, 2016, Fireclean filed a lawsuit against me. On page 6 of that lawsuit was the line "The product itself is specially formulated so that it will not "gum," or leave behind a solid residue from its use." Elsewhere on this page,… Read More

Fireclean has filed a motion to strike (https://blog.vuurwapen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/34-Motion-to-Strike.pdf) portions of my Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (https://blog.vuurwapen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/33-Reply-ISO-MTD.pdf) their latest lawsuit against me.  Their motion is based on the claim that the Reply introduced concepts which were not introduced in the Motion to Dismiss, which they contend is unfair. To be clear, not introducing things in a motion and then introducing them in a reply is not okay under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so if they had a solid basis for this motion then there would… Read More

Having received Fireclean's complaint, my motion to dismiss, Fireclean's response to my motion to dismiss, and my reply in support of my motion to dismiss, the judge now has all the information he needs to make a ruling. My reply in support of the motion to dismiss was just filed yesterday and it's a fairly quick (and excellent, in my opinion) read compared to some other documents in this case, if you have the time and inclination to peruse such things. An excerpt from my attorney, David Gingras', excellent writing:… Read More

As you may be aware, part of Fireclean's new lawsuit has to do with my article regarding the Fireclean Lube Test video they made with Larry Vickers about nine months before the controversy began. In the original version of their Arizona lawsuit, they included the line "After the comparison, David Sugg and Edward Sugg observe and comment on the testing." In their amended complaint, however, they added something to this sentence in addition to changing "David Sugg and Edward Sugg" to "The Sugg Brothers" - it now reads "...and Vickers concludes… Read More

As they have often mentioned, Fireclean has applied for a patent (see exhibit A of this lawsuit for the complete application) regarding two topics: an oil composition and a method for cleaning firearms. Several years ago, they described their product in various ways as containing "at least" 25% vegetable oil by volume. Elsewhere: Their patent was rejected in June of 2016 and again in October of 2016, for being both too close to prior art and not being specific enough about the formula. In April of 2017, they filed a last-ditch appeal… Read More

As voluminous as the Fireclean lawsuit is at 50 pages of complaint and 200 pages of exhibits, what's most notable is not what is in the suit, but what is not in the suit. Put more precisely, what is no longer in the suit is what really caught my attention. On September 13, 2015, Fireclean released a statement which included the line "(Fireclean) is... not a re-labeled or re-packaged product." On March 17, 2016, Fireclean filed a lawsuit against me. On page 7 of that lawsuit was the line "Fireclean is… Read More

Yesterday, Fireclean's counsel filed a motion opposing my motion to dismiss their lawsuit against me in the Arizona District Court. This comes on the heels of their poorly strategized motion opposing the length of my motion being shot down in flames by the same judge who'll eventually rule on the case itself. In their latest motion, Fireclean seems to make two main points: 1. I, Andrew Tuohy, am for real a competitor of Fireclean and 2. This topic is not a matter of public concern. In order to prove the… Read More

Who thinks the next US infantry rifle needs to be heavy, complicated, incredibly expensive, based on unproven technology, and reminiscent of much-maligned acquisition programs like the Littoral Combat Ship and F35 Joint Strike Fighter? A retired two-star general named Bob Scales, that’s who. If that name sounds familiar and you weren’t previously under his command or in the Army between the years of 1966 and 2000, it’s probably because Scales has been railing against the M4/M16 for many years. Scales has, in many other areas, put forth a number of… Read More

Along with the motion to dismiss Fireclean's complaint, my attorney David Gingras filed a Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits. You see, local rules limit motions to 17 pages. However, when you're facing a complaint that's 48 pages long plus 200 pages of exhibits, sometimes you have to exceed 17 pages in response. Ours was 24 pages (plus exhibits). Asking for extra pages on a motion is specifically allowed in the local rules. Oddly, Fireclean's counsel filed a Motion Opposing the Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits less… Read More