Letter from Ralph Fucetola, JD to TRUTHSound -- 02/18/03


To date I have advised Sharry Edwards to refrain from responding to the personal and professional attacks that have been posted on TRUTHsound. The "spin" on certain events seem to be designed to encourage others to attack Sharry and her Right to own her trade secrets and intellectual property. Now Sharry has been asked specifically by the owner of this site to respond. We have chosen to reply to some of the more blatant incidents of misinformation.


Persons who have acted on the assumption that what is being posted on TRUTHsound is the truth, would be advised to read the following FACTS carefully:


1) Linda Smith's trial and settlement: More than a week ago on Sunday morning, Linda Smith's attorney, John Lavelle, of Athens, Ohio contacted Sharry's lawyers requesting a meeting on that very afternoon. Lavelle provided the legal team with a settlement offer which we rejected. Lavelle then argued that Linda Smith was judgment proof (simply meaning that no money would be available when Sharry prevailed in the trial). Lavelle also mentioned that several people had come forward to testify against Sharry if she was determined to go forward with the trial. Throughout the day, we continued to refuse Smith's offers.


Finally we were asked to make an offer of settlement. Since we were determined to go to trial, we responded with a settlement listing what we suspected would not be accepted without a trial. To our surprise, Smith agreed to our demands if the settlement could be kept confidential. We refused. There would be NO confidential admissions or settlements.


Sharry finally agreed to forgo the cash settlement offered except for a symbolic $1.00. It was already understood by Sharry that if any financial settlement were agreed, Smith would likely file bankruptcy anyway. In the settlement Smith admitted in writing under oath that:


"I participated in irregular credit card transactions using... [company] credit card authorization equipment"


"I kept two sets of books, at least one of which was inaccurate and which included information of the alleged unauthorized expenditures, concerning the use and sale of... [company] and Sharry Edwards' funds, goods and equipment"


"I signed Sharry Edwards name to various and sundry items including checks and bank documents during my employment."


"That on or about December 26, 1996, I sent out, or had sent out, computer chips specifically developed for SSW to Martin Duxbury or his secretary, even though I was aware that Martin that Duxbury had already resigned from SSW."


"I was in possession of property, documents and records (including tapes) belonging to Sharry Edwards or... [company] even after my resignation from [company]."


"I used... company funds for personal purchases such as food and household supplies for which... [company] may not have been reimbursed."


"I further make this affidavit to exonerate Sharry Edwards from any claim made by me in these proceedings or elsewhere that she may have acted improperly or failed to oversee the companies or employees thereof."


The admissions go on for two pages. In addition Smith was required to return files, documents, stock and equipment that she removed from SSW and retained.


I would like to suggest that this is far removed from the "cup of coffee" portrait that was painted on this site. Sharry's motives were not financial in nature. Justice was her objective. Linda Smith's admissions also show that Linda Smith worked with other people to deliberately distribute the IP of Sharry Edwards to those who had no right to have that property.


Other settlements in this case:


Huw Roberts - settled out of court - returned hard drive, research programs, computer program in development and supplied additional information.


Elizabeth Marshall - after Linda Smith settled - was too insignificant to pursue


Linda Smith - 2 page affidavit of admissions - returned property.


Herman Smith - returned equipment - was part of settlement agreement with Linda Smith to settle Herman as well.


Tara Smith - - was settled as part of Linda Smith settlement but Tara's attorney still attempted to extract a pound of flesh, but was stopped by Judge Goldsberry's refusal to allow a counter suit that would have failed anyway since the time limitation on an "overtime" complaint is two years.


Jim Avery - signed settlement in Court on February 10, 2003 - settlement was read as part of Court record - Avery admitted to using Sharry's intellectual property and trade secrets without authorization, acknowledged her ownership of certain concepts of Human BioAcoustics that he has been using and agreed to prominently display her ownership of this property in any and all products from this day forward.


Martin Duxbury - from England - dropped on technicality regarding the Hague Convention - was implicated by Linda Smith in her affidavit as having received trade secrets improperly.


Elaine Thompson - signed settlement - admitted the use of and acknowledged Sharry Edwards intellectual property and trade secrets.


Dan Kunkel - was dismissed from local court (lack of jurisdiction) to be filed in Federal court.


Hocking Valley Bank - settled out of court - settlement sealed at the request of HVB.



2. While the information posted on Intellectual Property had some accurate points, it was inaccurate as to trade secrets being dependant on following up as a patent. Coca Cola has kept its recipe for Coke as a trade secret for many decades without moving toward a patent. People would like you to think that the trade secrets of Sharry Edwards are public domain and up for grabs. The Athens County Court has granted protection to Sharry Edwards for her IP that was filed by Dan Kunkel in the case. After Kunkel was dismissed (for lack of jurisdiction) he objected to the seal. One would need to ask why one would object to a seal of the exhibits after he had been dismissed from the case. Court records will reveal that Sharry Edwards has been granted a protection order that was specifically sent to William (Bill)  Meyer by order of the Court. You can read about that at the Sound Health Research Institute web site, We've posted the "Entry Sealing the Trade Secrets of Sharry Edwards" of February 10, 2003 there.


Sharry's IP is protected by copyright and provisional patent applications.  Contrary to what has been filed here, provisional patents are not open to the public.


Kunkel's case is expected to be filed in Federal Court and may include others who are presently violating the IP and trade secrets of Sharry Edwards.


3. William (Bill) Meyer has returned one computer program to Ms. Edwards that should not be in his possession and he has apparently admitted to having a second version of the program. Ms. Edwards has turned over to the police, Meyer's attempts to gain additional proprietary property from Sharry in exchange for the return of her Intellectual Property. This is being perceived as a third degree felony.


4. Bill Meyer has not been prevented from practicing BioAcoustics. He was simply removed from our private forum because he refused to comply with the stipulations for membership.


5. Jonathan Cohen has not been prevented from practicing BioAcoustics. He was simply removed from our private forum because he refused to comply with the stipulations for membership


6. It appeared to some of us that William (Bill) Meyer and Jonathan Cohen attempted to organize BioAcoustic practitioners against Sharry Edwards at the last annual Human BioAcoustic conference. Their attempts failed and were similar to the failed attempt of Elizabeth Marshall and others (some listed on this site) at the 1995 annual BioAcoustic conference.


Ms. Edwards' business is just that; a business. Practitioners have no Right to make demands concerning her business or her IP.


7. Ms. Edwards notes that Marysol's muscle frequencies may be similar to hers because Marysol is under contract with Sound Health to use Ms. Edwards' information in her program as long as she posts, with the program, that the property belongs to Sharry Edwards and that it is being used for research and data collection.


A posting on this site insinuated that frequencies are alike because Sharry had somehow used Marysol's frequencies. Many new frequencies and formulations have not been released because of the very behaviors that are happening on this site. Sharry has developed a triad of frequency combinations that include molecular weight, an activating frequency and a control frequency. These frequencies have been confirmed through DNA testing, lab tests and double blind studies. They will be released for use by all qualified Human BioAcoustic practitioners as soon as these legalities, and threats such as can be found on TRUTHsound, are eliminated. Frequencies equivalents for tendons, organs, genes, mutated pathogens and the Math Matrix templates for disease are also being held for such future release.


8. William (Bill) Meyer seems to be encouraging others to break their agreements with Sharry Edwards. This could be considered collusion, tortuous interference and/or conspiracy. Meyer has offered information contained in Sharry's new textbook that he is under contract not to reveal. Property rights in contracts and copyrights are settled law in civilized societies. Depriving creators such as Ms. Edwards of their recognized property is not lawful, nor is it justified on any alleged spiritual or other extra-legal grounds. People who think that Spirit wants them to violate basic legal rights are delusional -- or cavorting with unclean spirits!



9. Conference calls with Meyer and his attorney have been unproductive because of the responses from Meyer that seem to be designed to be baiting, rude and misdirecting.


The word "Taunting" might be used by some to describe the tactics that are being used by both Meyer and Cohen in both the written and spoken word.


10. No one would prevent Meyer from proposing a project using Sharry Edwards' IP. This is done frequently by legitimate researchers. Sharry has a Right to license her own property and wonders why Meyer is so adamant that she be left out of this process. The hubris of the uninformed is sometimes astounding!


11. Sharry Edwards does not demand that all data collected by practitioners become her property.  She wants the information to become available to all current, updated BioAcoustic practitioners. Any research project using her property is done under contract. That is her Right. It is her property. Many of the research projects that have been undertaken with other institutions and people have no monetary distribution; simply acknowledgement of her IP.


12. Jim Avery, a defendant in the trial that has been mentioned here, showed up for trial without an attorney representing his company. Ms. Edwards' trial lawyer could have asked for a default judgment and been granted what was demanded in the Complaint. Attorney fees could have been part of the demands but Ms. Edwards allowed Jim Avery to sign the original settlement that had been offered to him several years ago. The settlement he signed was read in Court into the Court record. He agreed that information in the "Korg" program belonged to Sharry Edwards and that he would post on that program a notice of that fact on any programs from this day forward. The IP was identified by name.


13. Bob Bethel is a fine legal researcher and scholar who has his JD. He practiced law in Florida for many years and has landmark cases to his credit. I personally consider him a valuable member of the Human BioAcoustics Legal Team.


14. The Protective Order from the Court extends to all "interested parties" in the case. That includes those of you on this site who agreed to testify for Linda Smith through Bill Meyer's efforts.


15. Sharry has received many honors for her pioneering efforts in Human BioAcoustics. In most circles, she is recognized as the legitimate leader of Vocal Profiling for health and wellness. Her reputation has been maligned for years by those who wish to keep her under control. She has dedicated her life to this work. She does not make bundles of money and in fact lives in one room above a garage because she refused to file bankruptcy against the business creditors who were deceived by the people who were in trusted positions in her company. The Linda Smith certification finally lays this all to rest: Ms. Edwards is indeed exonerated from any fault in this matter.


I hope this settles some of the issues. Feel free to email me at or visit my web site at Emails that contain name calling, are rude and/or snitty or that contain snide, derogatory remarks will not be tolerated and probably ignored. If you want an explanation of a situation of action, expect to supply the facts and be ready to prove what you are reporting.


Deliberate attempts to destroy Human BioAcoustics IP or trade secrets will be met with the strongest legal remedies possible. We have proven through persistence in years of litigation that Ms. Edwards can and will be protected. The Ohio court ultimately supported her Right. Kindly govern yourselves accordingly.


Update:  Order of March 18, 2003 upholds Seal Order of February 10, 2003.


Ralph Fucetola, JD

All Rights Reserved

Back to:  SHRI

Back to: Seal Order: sealorder.htm