PRESS RELEASE 1/30/2020 Sector 10, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SECI)

Investigators uncover coordinated framing of CEO during critical time of Utah $SECI case. Evidence trail shows the following:

Classic guerrilla war strategy involves attacks on multiple fronts. Sector 10 plaintiffs refused to stay down
after the 2007-2009 theft and financial ambush. Sector 10’s case stood strong against colluding lawyers
and attempts to force dismissal despite the massive evidentiary trail. So, when the CEO chose to leave
his toxic marriage and rebuild his life while fighting for Sector 10, the war strategists planned a blitzkrieg
on CEO, Pericles DeAvila’s personal life.

Oct 30, 2013 the CEO left his marriage after discovering his ex-wife had had an affair. The marriage had
deteriorated ever since the Sector 10 battles began in 2008. Mr. DeAvila decided he was finished with the
marriage and wanted to move on. He ran a profitable cell phone repair business that was paying the bills
so in 2014, he took a couple of trips to the Azores in Portugal, to visit family and explore future joint
ventures. Unbeknownst to him, then Sector 10 lawyers’ Dalton & Kelley and Eisenberg-Gilchrist were
preparing to let key defendants out of the case.

These unsanctioned actions preceded a highly suspicious barrage of spurious charges setting up against
the CEO. In January 2015, less than a month after the holidays, Mr. DeAvila was arrested and processed
with several felony charges having to do with domestic violence, assault, and destruction of property,
which allegedly occurred months prior. After his arrest, Dalton & Kelley and Eisenberg and Gilchrist quit
the Sector 10 case.

The property destruction charges alleged roughly $20,000 in damages to the car that was in his own
name, that he had purchased and owned, until the day his ex-wife filed an insurance claim. The police
evidence shows a car with window damage at the time of the incident. Yet, Mr. DeAvila’s ex-wife
submitted a claim via what appears to be a paint shop owned by her high school boyfriend’s brother for a
completely wrecked vehicle. Evidence shows, the same paint shop processed another fraudulent claim
on the family X3BMW months earlier. Why did the First American insurance company get a call from an
unidentified state official who told them to “stand down” on their inquiry into her fraudulent claim? Why did
Mr. DeAvila’s Pearson Butler attorney, Ryan Holton, suggest he get a more powerful criminal defense
attorney and contact the FBI as evidence was being ignored?

Mr. DeAvila was also accused of breaking into the family home. This charge was later dropped as the
police confirmed he was not in Utah at the time of the incident. Strange that the case was closed and not
further investigated. Did someone break in or not? Or was the charge only meant for Mr. DeAvila?
Overwhelmed, Mr. DeAvila brought in the legal firm Clyde Snow to help him resolve the mess. Snow went
up against the judge and got all charges dropped but the CEO had to take a misdemeanor for breaking a
car window or he would have to keep fighting the state on these erroneous charges.

On top of all the other legal battles, Mr. DeAvila’s divorce proceedings led to a trial in October 2015. Post
trial, he hired Rocky Mountain Advisory (forensics accounting) who discovered that his ex-wife had
monetized millions of shares of Sector 10 stock at higher prices than originally thought. The judge ruled
that she had to return the stock. She appealed and later lost. Did she have advanced warning of the
attacks planned for her then husband? What happened to the monetized stock? She has yet to comply
with the court ruling.

All of these legal battles suggest a clear tactical strategy to tie Mr. DeAvila’s hands, drain his resources
and distract him from the fight for Sector 10. Investigators believe that both sides (plaintiffs and defense
lawyers) of the Sector 10 case in Utah fully expected the criminal charges against Mr. DeAvila to sink the
Sector 10 case.

In 2016, after all charges against the CEO were about to be dropped, Dutro and the other defendants resurfaced, filing a motion to dismiss the case. Mr. DeAvila who had already secured attorney Eric Vogler handling his
divorce appeal, also agreed to temporarily help with Sector 10’s case. Vogler argued to the judge that
Sector 10’s case had been seriously mishandled and there were questions about collusion between
attorneys. In a stunning victory for Sector 10, Judge Pettit agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice.

This gave Sector 10 a welcome opportunity to refile their case in another state for a fresh start.
Oddly, the judge reversed her decision three weeks later with no explanation. Who intervened? Why
would she change her ruling three weeks later to keep the case in Utah?

In June 2016, the PIA firm rolled out the red carpet, promising to help Sector 10 investors get their day in
court. Over the next three years, PIA presented a story to Sector 10 that was very different from reality.
When the defense submitted summary judgement motions, Sector 10 spent weeks preparing detailed
evidence-based responses. PIA chose to ignore that and assign the response to attorney Jacob Arijanto,
who left the PIA firm a month later to begin working as an executive at Johnson Controls!

Finally, in August of 2018 Judge Pettit heard the summary judgement motion arguments and set a date to
issue her ruling in September. The ruling was rescheduled three times, with no explanation to Sector 10
by their own lawyers. Oddly enough, the judge ruled to dismiss several key Sector 10 claims but kept
tortious interference and breach of contract intact. Sector 10 had no way to know that PIA failed to
represent their evidence against the motions and had used a future employee of Johnson Controls to
represent their case!

During this same time period, Sector 10 stock raced to new levels, triggering a suspension by the SEC
due to over shorting and market manipulation, this action placed the stock onto the grey market.
Confirmation was later available that none of the Sector 10 insider shares have ever been sold. Evidence
of further interference?

As 2019 rolled in, Sector 10 expected discovery to be well underway. In over 10 years, the defense had
managed to refuse or avoid submitting discovery requests to Sector 10. The CEO was surprised to get a
call from PIA in May complaining about risk and asking for more money. Sector 10 offered the PIA firm
more than double what they asked for to ameliorate their concerns, but they eventually admit they wanted
out of the case. What was really going on?

Sector 10 hired the Salt Lake law firm of Clyde Snow on a limited scope to check on the case and the PIA
firm. The results were stunning. Discovery was never conducted in over three years under the PIA
contract. Deadlines were blatantly missed and critical evidence was possibly destroyed. Key information
was withheld from Sector 10, the judge and the courts. For three years, the PIA firm undermined and
helped to further gut the Sector 10 case. This was a clear “case within a case” of malpractice. But, sadly,
the investigation now shows this was not the first time in Utah for Sector 10.

In July, after Sector 10 pressured PIA for answers, the Judge received PIA’s motion to leave as counsel.
Several Dutro defendants appeared in court for the first time in 10 years, expecting case to be dismissed.
Judge Pettit admonished PIA for their misrepresentations, giving Sector 10 fourteen days to assign new
counsel, and ruled the case will go to trial; a sweet moment of victory after a decade fighting to be heard.

In September 2019, new counsel took over the wreckage of this case and revealed what no one could
have imagined; rampant fraud from named defendants all the way through to Sector 10’s own previous
counsel. Despite all the collusion, criminal set ups, lying, stealing and case gutting, the Utah courts
thankfully issued a ruling for trial in May 2020. Mediation is set for February 4 th 2020. Sector 10 has an
expert team of litigators in place to address all the malignant and malicious actions in Utah to deny Sector
10 investors justice for the theft of their technology.

Sector 10, Inc. is a Publicly Traded Company and affiliated Companies were defrauded and an extensive
cover up is still playing out in Utah and across the country today. It may be that justice is not possible in
Utah. Unfortunately for the named defendants, future defendants, and any who were let out of this case,
and all the corrupt attorneys involved, a federal RICO case cannot be confined to the brotherhood state

Once Sector 10 became aware of these recent activities and started putting together a timeline of the
case history, it promptly filed a complaint with the Utah Attorney General’s office with hopes that with their
help and the help of Judge Pettit, justice can be achieved.

$SECI stands for #Ethics #Transparency #Justice

Updates on the Utah Case, Case No. 119907606, Salt Lake City County, State of Utah.


Federal Court Case:  To be announced  

Continued updates will be published on: News and press releases on legal activities and court progress. Introduction, timeline of events, and new evidence as it becomes available and verified.

Twitter: @ExposedFacades

About Sector 10


Sector 10 has been in litigation to recover damages from a technology theft and laundry operation that delivered Sector 10 technology into the hands of then ADT/TYCO, causing the largest market cap increase in their history. 


The lawsuit was filed in a Utah Court against ADT/TYCO acquired subsidiary Proximex Corporation as well as Valley Inception LLC, Incisive Software Corporation, Trusys Inc, Dutro Company, Reality Engineering Inc, and individuals.

The list has grown as well as the evidence towards a Federal RICO.


Case No. 119907606, Salt Lake City County, State of Utah



Safe Harbor Statement: 

This press release may include "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release that address activities, events or development that the company expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and, uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no duty whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments.


Contact by email :