The ventriloquist of Miami

Peter Gluck dutifully reports all swamp gas from Andrea Rossi’s blog, JONP. So I saw this there, first. There are so many posts like this that I can’t and won’t keep up.

April 22, 2017 at 7:13 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
The puppets of the so called “ventriloquist of Raleigh” are saying that IH received the 50 millions from Woodford because they had in portfolio many intellectual properties, not only yours. But I discovered that this is false! Reading the documents published by the Court, I saw that Woodford invested 50 millions in IH on February 2015 and at that time IH had only your IP in the portfolio! To make more clear the fraud of IH toward you, is the fact that Tom Darden made visits with only your IP in IH’s portfolio with senior officers of Woodford in your plant, to convince them to pay him the 50 millions and enjoyed the reference of the engineer of JM (Jim Bass) in the same day, during the visit of the same senior officers of Woodford in your plant of Doral.
Isn’t this true?
A friend of yours of the silent majority that sustains your work and is disgusted from the dishonesty of the ventriloquist.

A “ventriloquist” is a performer who makes a puppet or other object appear to speak by suppressing the normal mouth and facial movements that allow us to identify the speaker. On this internet, this is someone who creates and writes through “sock puppets,” after the real sock puppets used by some ventriloquists. Continue reading “The ventriloquist of Miami”

Murray under fire, unflappable

On LENR Forum, Wyttenbach wrote one of his typical posts. Wyttenbach has a PhD in math, so he is likely to understand the Murray testimony — about the simulations — better than an ordinary bear. But he focuses on something that he is not highly experienced with, the human interactions, making unwarranted inferences and drawing conclusions that he’s pulling out of the air, or perhaps out of a confined, smelly, and dark space.

Why did Darden introduce Murray into this story? Continue reading “Murray under fire, unflappable”

Hearing transcripts!

Hearing transcripts are available to the public 90 days after the hearings, and I just downloaded two. These give a glimpse of the attorneys in action, and also the judges.

Here is all of them that we have so far, with the judge presiding:

09/16/2016 0048.0_Hearing_transcript O’Sullivan
12/05/2016 0084.0_Motion_hearing_and_status_conference Altonaga
12/09/2016 0088-0 Hearing transcript (no access) Duplicate of DE 84.
Newly downloaded:
12/28/2016 0097.0 Transcript of Magistrate Hearing O’Sullivan
01/10/2017 0106.0 Hearing Transcript

There are some quite interesting discussions, you get to watch attorneys make mistakes, and we find that Rossi was wearing a wig — a “piece on his head,” — December 28. Continue reading “Hearing transcripts!”

About transcripts of federal court hearings

Sometimes I have seen claims on that the public can obtain transcripts of court hearings by paying for them. I may have said this myself, here, because the filings imply this. However, during the 90 day period before hearing transcripts are published to PACER, it appears that only parties and attorneys may obtain transcripts, they are limited:

During the 90-day period (which may be extended by the court), access to the transcript in CM/ECF is restricted to court staff, public terminal users, attorneys of record or parties who have purchased the transcript from the court reporter/transcriber, and other persons as directed by the court (e.g., appellate attorneys). Also, during this time, parties may redact personal identifiers. After the 90-day period has ended, the filed transcript will be available for inspection and copying in the clerk’s office and for download from the court’s CM/ECF system through the judiciary’s PACER system.

Just as any member of the public may attend the actual hearings, any member of the public may use the “public terminal” in the court to read the transcript.

There are two obvious concerns. First of all, a hearing transcript may reveal personal information, that could be redacted. This is covered by Privacy Policy for Electronic Case Files. The court will not publish the files, other than on the public terminal — which does not allow printing, but, ah, google glass? — ; however, the concerns are to have been addressed within 31 days of the filing of the transcript. Even short of that, it is unclear that publication by an attorney (i.e., providing the transcript to media), if any private data has been redacted, would be a violation. American Bar has a discussion.

The personal identifiers to be redacted are Social Security numbers, names of minor children, financial account numbers, dates of birth, and, in criminal cases, home addresses2.

This brings up the other concern, an attempt to influence the case by “extrajudicial” comment.

Several topics presumed prejudicial to proceedings relate specifically to criminal proceedings. This reflects the comment’s recognition that certain types of proceedings, notably civil matters triable to a jury, criminal matters, and matters that could result in incarceration, are particularly likely to be prejudiced by extrajudicial statements. See Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.6 cmt. [6]. These concerns further explain the additional limits on extrajudicial comments (discussed below) that Model Rule 3.8(f) imposes on prosecutors.

Statements Presumed Not Likely to Create Material Prejudice
While the comment sets forth a list of topics presumed to create prejudice, Model Rule 3.6(b) itself provides a “safe harbor” of statements that a lawyer can publish with considerably less concern about whether a pending adjudication may be substantially prejudiced. According to Model Rule 3.6(b), and the majority of comparable state rules, there are seven categories of information that presumably may be disclosed publicly:

the claim, offense, or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
information contained in a public record;
that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and
in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6): (i) the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(iii) the fact, time, and place of arrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

This list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of topics on which extrajudicial statements are permitted. Rather, Model Rule 3.6(b) is intended only to provide lawyers with a list of categories they can discuss publicly with little fear of violating the rules of professional conduct. See Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.6 cmt. [4]. For an interesting case discussing application of the safe harbor where a lawyer effectively paraphrases statements in the public record, see PCG Trading, LLC v. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 460 Mass. 265, 951 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 2011).

Is the transcript “information contained in a public record”? Any member of the public may access the transcript. The intention is to avoid revelation of private information, on the one hand, and to avoid prejudice, but this is being balanced with the right of the public to know, and of media to report on the proceedings. Media could send a reporter to the hearing, who could take notes (even verbatim notes if the reporter has that skill, i.e., the skills possessed by an old-fashioned court reporter or stenographer). See Media rules and also General Order 58.

A related concern is that transcripts may contain information that could not be presented to a jury as evidence. However, if it is public record, too bad. A party may request the court to redact anything prejudicial, it is not routine.

So to the present practical reality. It has been claimed that IH is attempting to dominate discussion of the case, while there is no evidence for that.

The argument is that IH would want to appear to the public as the “savior” of LENR. However, sending stooges to the blogs is a very poor way to do that; they could simply issue press releases with facts that are already public record. If they were interested in astroturfing — the definition of which does not resemble anything operative in Rossi v. Darden — there are other actions they could take. How about sending gobs of money to, say, LENRIA or Infusion Institute Inc.? Hint! So far, not a penny to III from IH or anyone reasonably accusable of being an IH stooge. As far as I know, no supporter of III has received any benefit other than information from IH or IH employees or contractors.

I’ll be setting up crowdfunding, though, and there would be no way to prevent such contributions, but … I would certainly disclose any attempt to prejudice my reporting.

(Setting up organizations that pretend to be grass-roots movements but that are actually under the influence and control of the master organization, for the purpose of influencing legislation, through letter-writing campaigns, was “astroturfing,” and that still goes on, but has nothing to do with LENR or Rossi v. Darden. Example, APCO apparently advised the tobacco industry, their clients, to set up such organizations, to pretend that there was a mass movement to protect the rights of smokers — to kill themselves with cigarettes without being informed about the involved science. There are anti-AGW organizations now that are reasonably considered astroturfing, but not all anti-AGW comment is from such, and, in the end, it shouldn’t matter if legislators keep their eye on the ball. On the other hand, if the legislator is corrupt, influenced by campaign donations, always a worry, and lazy, i.e., doesn’t verify the alleged public stand but uses it as an excuse, astroturfing could work.)

Any party could reveal transcripts extrajudicially, bearing in mind the limitations and rules, but, to my knowledge, no party has done so. Publishing excerpts from hearings, as evidence for motions, has been routinely done when relevant. That is not “extrajudicial.” If I were in Florida, I could go to the public terminal and take notes, it appears that this does not violate the rules.

I find it all quite odd, because notes can be inaccurate and biased, and as a non-party and non-attorney, I could not be readily sanctioned for publishing my notes. What would make much more sense would be an accelerated schedule for the public availability of transcripts. There seems to be no stated justification for that requiring 90 days.

Suppose the public sees that some party is being unfairly treated in court. The public could intervene by donating to a defense fund, for example. However, if the transcripts that might show this are not available until, say, after the trial, not to mention all the pretrial maneuvering, the right of the public, the very purpose of requiring public access, is frustrated and only useful for possible appellate review, which can be too late for some important issues.

As part of searching for sources for information on this issue, I found no example of sanctions for public review not showing some egregious violation. The case cited above, PCG Trading, LLC v. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP , involved a denial of an appearance pro hoc vice based on an alleged comment in a law review article. In the end, this denial was rejected by the appeals court, because it fell within the “safe harbor,” in the judgment of that court. Remarkable case: there what stands out is an attorney (Seyfarth Shaw) with an undisclosed conflict of interest who screwed his client over by filing a motion to dismiss a case against the other client. That motion was then used as evidence to allow a filing against his continued client.

I did find a remarkable case where an attorney was sanctioned for uncivil behavior. That was extreme behavior compared to anything I’ve seen in this case, though I’ve seen what could be called uncollegial behavior, aggressive toward opposing attorneys, accusing them of misconduct, and the ruling on that case distinguishes between aggressive promotion of a client’s interests and incivility. What I find especially remarkable in this case was that the respondent blamed others for his own out-of-control behavior. They made him do it, by being such assholes. (including all the other involved attorneys and any judge that ruled against his arguments.) I kid you not. Who could blame him for shouting, in the presence of such extreme provocation? Remarkably, a referee determined a 90 day suspension. It appears that the attorney contested it instead of entering a consent order. The court upped it to two years, more than the Bar Association had requested (one year), required that respondent appear in court for a public reprimand, set up an 18-month probation on the end of the suspension, and recommended (perhaps required) counselling. And this was two strikes, three and additional sanctions would be applied. Disbarment. I hope that the fellow took this seriously. What I know about making mistakes like his is that if one declares and stands for responsibility, it can all go away, eventually. He’d become a more effective attorney. His attempts to blame others were the giveaway that this was not some accident. This also is not just about behavior in Court, this applies to life as a whole.

I also found reference to a case regarding how an attorney is to act if the attorney discovers perjury on the part of the client. It was an extreme case.



No goal, no go, just drift

One of our best conversations here started with this commentary by THH on a blog post with a frivolous title, Touch and go at the Planet Rossi spaceport.

I’m interested in the U of Texas work. But there are many subtleties about how to eliminate mundane explanations. How sure are you that they are looking at this more rigorously than LENR typical?

Okay, one question or issue at a time. How sure am I? While Stuff Can Happen — even masters at a craft can make mistakes — there are, indeed, some masters involved, professionals, highly experienced, and fully aware of the history of LENR and, my sense, fully aware of what is needed for a LENR breakthrough. I’m a bit concerned about lack of recent communication, but this merely a reminder to self to make it happen. Continue reading “No goal, no go, just drift”

Rendsing a dead horse

Rends, of the LENR Forum staff cabal, has amazing news for us:

Rends wrote:

I want to add some facts concerning the questions if IH is somehow related to Cherokeefund or not, which is denied by Darden

There is no “question” about the connection of IH and Cherokee, and this was known even before Rossi v. Darden was filed, naming Cherokee as a defendant, based on a claim that Darden and Vaughn had misled Rossi, claiming that he was really dealing with Cherokee and that Industrial Heat was just a front or the like.

IH and Cherokee have not denied the “connection,” as Rends claims with no evidence, but only the claim of Cherokee ownership of and responsibility for Industrial Heat. So what happened? Continue reading “Rendsing a dead horse”

Touch and go at the Planet Rossi spaceport

Touch and go.

Nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there.

On LENR Forum, Argon wrote:

There is not much new facts anymore to dig from court documents. Re-circling around pipe diameter (it was first claimed to be 5″ , remember), pressure and window frame paints and reflections, marks on the floor etc. is waste of time at this point. There is no clear evidence did Rossis container produce extra heat or not no matter how much we dig photo details and stains on floor.

Argon has noticed that much. But what it seems he is doing is looking for “new facts,” as if most everything is already known. Distinguishing between fact and fantasy can be … difficult. Most of us walk around in illusion and fantasy, starting with our sensory experience, which is heavily filtered and processed so that we don’t notice the artifacts, such as entoptic phenomena. We have Motions for Summary Judgment pending. These will depend on fact, not fantasy and speculative judgment. And my guess is that Argon does not discriminate, and confuses the two, routinely. It would not be surprising. In many ways, that is how most of us live, until we die and the illusions fall apart. Maybe. “Nice place to visit.”

In any case, thanks to Argon for the work involved in putting together a series of Planet Rossi tropes.

What instead has been shown plain clear in documents is that:
-Ross become suspicious on IH:s agenda, and is now proven, for a good reason.

No surprise, Planet Rossi thinks like Rossi. This is well-known in sophisticated circles: treat people with suspicion, they will come to merit the suspicion. Argon is, here, asserting “proof” for a claim of agenda. What stands as “proof” for Argon?

-IH was trying to rule LENR markets by trying to capture all relevant LENR IPR. IH business plan is so revealing and clear on this.

Argon doesn’t cite the sources. I’ve been going over and over those sources. I don’t see what he sees, what he thinks is “so revealing and clear.” IH clearly wants to be a major player with LENR. They are not, however, attempting to control the entire field, but rather to cooperate and collaborate with very much of it. They do not see LENR as a zero-sum game, unlike, say, Andrea Rossi, who has been explicitly attempting to dominate the market, to own it, he’s been very open about it.

What IH obviously wants to do is to, first, stimulate LENR progress (including by funding basic research without commercial potential in itself), and, second, to be in a position to recognize and participate in genuine commercial opportunities, if those arise. Right now, I don’t know of any, but they might know more and it is their business to know more. If they operate with lies and deception, they could easily trash their relationship with the field.

-Funding rest of the researchers they tried to control how LENR comes to market – if ever. (any research community members want to speak up?)

Most CMNS researchers will not come close to fora like LENR-Forum. This is meaningless. “Coming to market” is way premature for the field. Rossi was the only game even asserted to be close. Brillouin Energy makes some claims, but if one reads them closely, they are not close. They are merely promising, if that. Nobody really understands how LENR works, it is, at this point, a lab curiosity, unreliable, difficult to control. There are some experimental approaches working on that, but the best work at this point is fundamental science, particularly confirming and measuring with increased precision the heat/helium correlation in palladium deuteride work. This has no commercial implications and is being funded, effectively, through charitable contribution and state matching funds. IH is, of course, quite aware of this. I was told first by someone from IH that the effort in this regard was well-funded, and only discovered the source of that funding later.

What I do know is that IH has good relations with most of the established researchers in the field, if not all, and there is no sign of discontent or opposition to IH there.

-It become as big surprise to IH that Mr Rossi choose rather to fall with IH in court than let them steal and control the LENR market. For example mr Weaver learnd about problems just late February just before IH published their press release. Until that he was going full ahead on expanding IH:s smelly reach.

This is incoherent. Rossi’s action filing the lawsuit has demolished his own fundraising possibilities. Weaver knew about issues with Rossi long before last February, but held his water.

-Hiring israeli partners to do the dirty work to invalidate test report by seemingly unethical means – no matter was court sealing the doc or not. The proof is there in black on white,

There is no evidence of “hired Israeli partners.” This was Levi’s fantasy. There is no “proof,” but not only is there no proof, there is no evidence other than Levi’s rant. There is no evidence that the private investigator was working for IH, and no evidence that the investigator attempted to “invalidate” the Lugano report. Essentially, it takes a paranoid mind to read the documents that way. Argon is claiming “proof” in “black and white,” but does not actually point to it. Game on, Argon. Put up or shut up.

In some of the court pleadings, attorneys claim proof, and point to documents as evidence, and those documents don’t support the claims, and sometimes even the opposite. In some circles, that would be called “lying.” Claims in pleadings, though, are not subject to perjury for false representations, though sometimes there can be sanctions.

– Mr Weaver sending very nasty mail to Swedish professors should be glowing warning sign for any current and future business partners to stay far away from any IH-initiatives. I’m very delighted to see that Swedish companies are much more far sighting.

I didn’t find that mail nasty at all, nor did the recipient claim it was nasty. It was Levi who reacted that way, hysterically, and then Rossi claimed that this was an attempt to damage his Nobel Prize prospects. Yeah, right.

-Not signing amendment paper is just lawyer juggling and spells out loud and clear real IH skin.

It is not just a lack of signature, and it was not IH who did not sign. It was Ampenergo, Rossi’s long-term supporters, and this was not some merely technical oversight, it was deliberate. The Second Amendment, that allowed the GPT to be postponed, was invalid, and Rossi knew it. IH then said that Rossi could still earn the money, if he fulfilled the underlying purposes of the Agreement. Rossi took this as allowing him to set up a fake GPT (creating resemblances) without ever obtaining the written agreement that the Second Amendment required, if it had been valid. Rossi, being paranoid, never understood that in business, one must actually satisfy customers and investors, not merely fulfill some technical requirement. When he refused to allow Murray to visit the Doral plant, that was a bridge too far, way too far. This violated not only the Term Sheet, but also the clear intentions of the Agreement that IH would have the ability to fully observe the required tests. Rossi did not have the right to choose who would represent them, they had that right. Rossi, in his answer, explained that he believed that Murray was a spy. Spy for whom?’

And why would there be Rossi secrets at Doral, other than the Plant operation itself, which Rossi had supposedly fully disclosed to IH already?

Well, he was doing his own research there. Doral, instead of being what he had represented, a chemical manufacturing company, was entirely Rossi created, designed, controlled, and paid for. He rented the warehouse and only subleased part of it to “JMP” and all this really existed only on paper and in his mind. And he lied about it again and again.

-Big resources of Planet IH here is repeatedly and consistently redirecting discussion to some irrelevant details every time some one tries to touch some relevant subject. That is so clear pattern that this thread is very fruitful source for lots of manipulation studies to come. (see what happens quickly after this posting)

There are no “big resources of Planet IH” on LENR Forum. The closest is Jed Rothwell, who was at one time listed as a possible advisor. Jed has claimed he has not received any payments from IH; and I know Jed, for a long time, as a source of funding and support for LENR. He is not in IH’s pocket, he doesn’t need IH, but Jed supports LENR and anyone who supports LENR is, as the science, would be likely to have some friendly connection with IH. He’s visited them in North Carolina, which is not far from where he lives.

Then there is Dewey Weaver, who is not positing on LF any more and who might not go back. IH doesn’t need LF, for anything. I can guarantee that IH is not supporting coverage of Rossi v. Darden, at least not so far! I think I’d know about it!

– Have you ever wondered that IH was not willing to arrange test customers.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! Okay, he probably believes this carp. IH had a customer ready and willing, and Rossi rejected it, and this is clear not only from IH testimony, but from the Rossi email proposing the move of the Plant to Florida. Basically, Argon has believed Rossi Says, but has not modified his impressions by studying the case documents. And if he does, he will likely be searching for proof of what he already believes. That is the major way that we fool ourselves.

-Have you ever wondered why IH is not willing to give back the license if they think that Rossis conainer is expensive water boiler with COP of 1.

Why should they “give back” what they paid for? We do not know that IH has refused to return the license, nor on what conditions. This is all Rossi Says. One of the possibilities here, it is explicitly suggested by IH as one of two major possibilities is that Rossi actually has a real technology but is creating a breakdown of the IH Agreement in order to get them to return the license — as he did with Hydro Fusion before.

(Annesser ridiculed the “two alternatives,” ofensively, in my mind, as logically inaccurate. I.e., of course there are more than two possibilities, but some of them will not be ones that would be asserted by IH, such as “IH is lying through their teeth.” Logical possibility, to be sure. Not a practical one.)

As long as there is even a small possibility, I would expect IH to hold on to the license. However, if there is some consideration for return, such as a refund of their investment, they might let it go. That investment at this point is north of $20 million, I expect. Would they take less? I don’t know.

All this would be considered in settlement negotiations, if there are any, or in a court decision, if it comes to that.

Argon is thinking in black and white terms. I.e. if the technology is worthless, which he probably believes IH is claiming — I haven’t noticed that — then the license is worthless, but the value of a license like this, to a venture capitalist — and that is IH — is the probability of value in the future times the benefit if that value matures. In this case, the benefit could be a trillion dollars. What has been shown (from the IH point of view) is that Rossi did not transfer the technology to them, if it is real. So what is the probability that it is real? In this scenario, Rossi is withholding the secret, and he has done the like of this before. Rossi seems to understand that, with the License Agreement, he was not only selling the “E-cat,” but all related future development, such as Quark-X. And easily he might believe he sold it too cheaply.

But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If there is enough cash on the barrel, IH might decide it would be better to invest that elsewhere. These are complex decisions, not the mindless “real or not” calculations of Argon. I know a lot, and I still don’t know which I would choose. To pay IH what it would take, though, would probably be more than Rossi has, so he’d need to find a new investor, if there are any left on Planet Earth who would trust him. Mostly Planet Rossi is a collection of losers, with big mouths and small pocketbooks. Still, you never can tell. How about Magnus and Hydro Fusion? Have they forgiven Rossi for what he did to them — by his account — in 2012? Hope springs eternal.

Disclaimer: No I don’t believe Rossi had anything produced in ‘customer’ container nor that ERV would be reliable, but I’m thankful for him to reveal true colors of IH:s LENR job. Someone will it as viable technology and LENR now escapes from IH:s hands – for the better of us all.

What I’ve seen of IH operations, in the court documents, actually gives me high faith in them as angel investors. I know some researchers that they have supported. Nobody is complaining, but Rossi, the one who received the most support, and IH did not stop Rossi from developing and promoting his technology, there is no evidence of that. They had a right of first offer as to licenses elsewhere, but this could not harm him, it would give him more money if they exercised it. He could have installed a high-power reactor in Sweden, years ago, if he had one. The one who has stopped Rossi, if he has anything real, is Rossi.

Rossi created the Doral test that he slaved away at. He is now claiming that it was uncomfortably hot. Did he claim that during the year? Did anyone else report that? The entire idea of a 1 MW test was Rossi’s, this is not what any engineer would want. Apparently IH offered to pay him to not do it. He refused. Rossi did not use lawyers for what they are good for, negotiations. He only used Annesser to threaten and then to sue. My guess is that Annesser encouraged that, leading his client down the road to ruin.

PS. Just wish me356 has taken a good read on this case and keep cool and stay far away of such business partners.

I see no evidence other than “me356 Says” that me356 has anything real. Maybe he does. Maybe not. I decided, by 2011 or 2012, that the future of LENR could not depend on speculations and secret commercial ventures (like Rossi), that we needed a “Plan B,” which I identified as encouraging basic scientific research.

I see IH as a partner in that effort, willing to work with other players, so far, at least. I expect genuine commercial efforts to be secret, and I expect science to be open. The two, mixed, become mixed-up, because there arise conflicts of interest. LENRIA, Nagel’s organization, may have a role to play here.

Abd on Abd as the Center of the Universe

They are talking about me on LENR Forum again. While the history of my ban there is quite open, if one studies history on LF and looks at what I wrote here about it when it happened, it’s obvious that few actually know the history. LF Staff are far from transparent, which is a major part of the problem.

Let’s start with this: the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS)  community needs to develop what are called, in my training, Structures for Fulfillment. From the beginning, the community was fragmented and ineffective, compared to what might be seen as possible. When I came into the field in 2009, I found no evidence of sane collective decision-making procedures that were anything more than ad hoc. Fund-raising was isolated and largely individual. Factions were fighting with each other, but aside from a few highly opinionated individuals, internal criticism was mostly missing. Experts in CMNS did not criticise the work of others, they would not even comment on it (and I asked).

I saw, in CMNS conferences, no mechanisms for finding and expressing consensus. So, from a social point of view, it was all primitive, and mostly the community was reactive, blaming the lack of progress on “them,” the mainstream refusing to accept experimental reality. But how was that reality being communicated? Was it effective and clear? Were experts in communication being sought, either as paid consultants or as volunteers?

Mostly not. Something was missing, and, since I could see it, it became my responsibility to create it. So, now, to LF. This will be long, because many complex issues are raised. Part of the problem is an intolerance of complexity. Complexity is not for everyone, but what I’ve found, many times, is that those who hate complexity will act to suppress it, even though they could simply step around it. What we do not understand, we try to kill, it is probably a basic survival instinct, xenophobia.

In a sane organizational structure, complexity is channeled. In an insane one, it is repressed, censored, or at least ridiculed and insulted. Continue reading “Abd on Abd as the Center of the Universe”

About vacuum and steam/water circulation

It’s been said many times on LENR Forum, and is even stated in the infamous Exhibit 5, wherein an E-cat-supplied steam pressure of 0.0 barg (by definition, atmospheric pressure) is considered impossible, because, it is claimed, the reservoir at the E-cat, into which the water returns, is open to the air, so it is also at 0.0 barg, so steam would not flow.

The contrary claim, then, is that the pressure at the condenser is below atmospheric, which would allegedly create backflow from the return, the water would not return. Something is being overlooked. Continue reading “About vacuum and steam/water circulation”

With Rossi, an emphatic No means “I can get away with saying this.”

Thanks to LENR Calender, I noticed this question on JONP:

April 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
In a blog has been published that the firm USQL, of Engineer Fulvio Fabiani, belongs to the same trust that owns Leonardo Corporation (Florida Energy Trust): is it true?

Andrea Rossi
April 15, 2017 at 2:05 PM

It is totally false that the company USQL belongs, directly or indirectly, to any trust that owns any quote of Leonardo Corporation. If any blog has published this information, it must be clear that:
1- this information is false , therefore who published it is a fraudolent bloggist, probably paid to make a so blatant falsification. Should he, or she, be a journalist, for such a falsification this fraudster would have been fired.
2- this information gives the measure of the low level of the puppets
3- the ownership of USQL has been published in the deposition sworn by Eng. Fabiani, that has been disclosed in the pacemaker of the Court. The ownership of USQL is also very easy to verify in the published documents and in the public register of the USA companies:also such document has been published in Court.
Clearly our foes, not having true arguments to make their case better, are now recurring to false statements.
Warm Regards,

In many court documents, I’ve seen recently, Rossi makes statements that other statements are false (“disputed”) when the reality is that the statements are true, as stated, but Rossi restates them to make them arguably false. There is — or was — a relationship between Florida Energy Trust and both USQL and Leonardo Corporation (Florida). In a deposition, Rossi is unclear about who owns Florida Energy Trust, but he thinks he is the sole beneficiary. The owner of Leonardo Corporation (Florida) is Florida Energy Trust, to be sure.

That is, the ownership of LC (FL) is different from LC (NH) which was owned entirely by Rossi. This then creates some problems, because LC NH was party to the Agreement, the First Amendment, and then the proposed and failed Second Amendment, and Leonardo FL, which existed from 2010 on, i.e., at the same time as LC NH was signing with Industrial Heat, has separate ownership (even if Rossi is the beneficiary). Rossi claims that NH merged into FL, but … when is unclear.

Rossi’s response to the IH Motion for Summary Judgment is completely inadequate on this. No evidence is shown of the merger. There is other evidence to review, to be sure, but …. what do I immediately find now?

First of all, Florida Energy Trust (FET) was reported as 100% owner of Leonardo Corporation for 2012. What Leonardo Corporation? The EIN is 90- 0780933. The address of the corporation is c/o Andrea Rossi, 1331 Lincoln Road, Unit 601, Miami Beach FL 33139. We know there was a $1.5 million payment to LC (NH, from the Agreement) in 2012. This is greater than the entire income of the Leonardo reporting. The return is signed by Travis, the New Hampshire accountant.

The 2013 LC return shows the same EIN, address, and FET ownership. We know there was a payment of $10 million to LC (NH?) in 2013. This is, again, much more than the entire income reported for this Leonardo. (The original return apparently claimed about $3 million in income. The amendment reduces this to less than $1 million.) There is also a deduction for “Florida taxes.” This is not conclusive but indicates a Florida corporation.

I conclude that this return is for Leonardo Florida, in spite of the accountant being in New Hampshire, and that the IH payments went into Leonardo NH. Rossi simply continued to use the same accountant for 2012. These returns do not cover the IH payments, but Rossi claims a merger, which would merge all the income and expenses as well. If so, the merger happened after 2013. It is possible there is evidence re the merger somewhere in the mountain of documents recently filed.

Then, from that 2013 return, LC Florida loaned $35,000 to USQL. It also shows an “investment” in a MW Plant of $1,248,617. Given that Rossi sold a 1 MW plant to IH in 2013, and was not known to have another, this is very odd. In any case, the $11.5 million paid as directed by Rossi did not go to LC FL, but likely to LC NH.

Now, USQL. This is their 2013 incorporation document.  It shows the Registered Agent as Johnson. Yes, the same Johnson. Two Managing Members are shown: Fabio Fabiani and Florida Energy Trust. I understand that his is unusual for a managing member of an LLC to be an organization.

The office of USQL is the Rossi address above (including Unit 601)

This is a 2014 reinstatement for USQL. It still shows FET as a managing member. 2015, the same. The same Unit 601 address. The 2015 return was filed March 3, 2015. The Doral plant was in operation.

2016, however, FET is dropped, same in 2017. The 2016 report was filed February 23, 2016, and the address was changed to Unit 401. The 2017 report was filed about a week ago, still with the same address, Unit 401, though Fabiani is known to now be living in Russia. Johnson is still the registered agent.

Now, what Rossi wrote. It’s more or less correct, as to the present state, perhaps, but it is the “less correct” that is something so common with Rossi. From his vehement denial one would think that there was no connection between FET and USQL. However, there was a connection. It was dropped at about the time of the end of the GPT.

What happened to the $35,000 that LC (FL) loaned to USQL? The Leonardo tax returns we have — which may not be all the “Leonardo” returns — contain numerous red flags that I’d expect an IRS auditor to be interested in, and this question about USQL is of some small interest.

Not a large interest. Why Rossi didn’t just say the truth could remain a mystery, except that deceptive claims that are in some way true seem to be SOP for him. A simple response would have been “At one time, FET was a manager of USQL, along with Fabio. That was dropped in March, 2016.”

However, around this time, Fabiani’s equipment — his computer and electronics — was thrown outside at the Plant, Fabiani retrieved it from the trash. He writes to Murray, shortly, that Rossi thinks he is a spy. He’s lost his job. When Rossi filed the lawsuit, I think he saw the train coming down the track, and got out of town, even though he is still using the condo as address (apparently, it’s owned by Rossi). He is more or less screwed, but I hope that he saved enough to see him through.

Fabiani was a friend of Rossi’s wife. That’s how he got involved. He seems to have remained loyal to Rossi, and it is not clear whether or not he knew about the frauds. I think his Lewan interview that I previously reported on was sincere.

Rossi is paranoid, hair-trigger reactive. Someone on a blog mentions an obsolete fact — I had seen this and may even have repeated it, though I was not the source — and he starts frothing at the mouth.


Agreement written with vanishing ink

And Rends does it again, making claims with a link to a document that does not show what he claims. This one was a familiar point to it, and I thought for a few minutes that I’d made some big mistake with what I’d written before. Instead, there is another explanation.

On LENR Forum, Rends wrote: (Abd emphasis)

The heat exchanger story is a good example, as the IH expert Rick A. Smith has shown in his report by means of photographs, there was this serpentine heat exchanger, just as Rossi has described it to Wong. What sense should the installation of this heat exchanger make, if the Ecat plant does not work? Because according to the agreements between IH and JM Products, no IH personal would have been allowed to take a look into the black box. This heat exchanger makes sense only if heat is actually produced, if this was all a fake, this installation would have been completely unnecessary.

https://thenewfire.files.wordp…_1_to_15_ocr.pdf#page=136 Continue reading “Agreement written with vanishing ink”

On fantasy, fact, belief, and faith

I had recently seen a sane post from Rends and so, I thought, maybe he is learning. And then I saw this exchange today.

On LENR Forum, Rends wrote:

It is not about faith but about facts.

Great. However, Rends proceeds to mix fact and fantasies, his own or some, perhaps, shared with Planet Rossi. “Fantasy” is not a synonym for “error,” but rather distinguishes fact from what we make facts mean. Science, in general, is a collection of experimental reports (generally, “fact”) plus interpretive relationships that have been shown to be useful for prediction of future findings and experience. These are not fact, they are fantasy, and an ontological or epistemological error is made when they are considered fact. They can be highly useful, but if considered fact, they can inhibit change and growth. Rather, fantasies are useful or they are not. That, itself, is a fantasy, by the way, mine.

This ontology might seem to create an endless regression, but, in actual practice, it does not. The sky does not fall when we recognize our favorite beliefs as being fantasies, once we get over the impression that fantasy is Bad. Fantasy is incredibly useful, when distinguished.

So, the rest of Rends’ comments:

Fact is, there are several reports and expert opinions (such as the Lugano Report, the Penon Report, the Wong Opinion etc.pp.), which are mentioned in this court proceedings, from respected scientists, who confirm that the 1MW Ecat Plant works, Cherokee Investment Partner has only two technicians that make assumptions without having ever tested the system itself.

What a mess!


There are two reports, allegedly by experts, mentioned in the Court Proceedings. The Penon Report allegedly confirms that the “1 MW Plant works.” The Wong report does not. Wong was hired to critique the Smith and Murray expected testimonies, and Wong claims to find that certain criticisms are not well-founded. He does not opine on whether or not the Plant  “worked.”

There is the Lugano Report, which is not an expert opinion, these “respected professors” — that’s a Planet Rossi trope and is common among pseudoscientists — were not expert in the necessary field, calorimetry by using thermal imaging — so behind this opinion is a set of held assumptions, beliefs, or fantasies, that are not explicitly distinguished. The Lugano report and all the other reports do not “confirm that the 1 MW Plant works.” It would not do that even if it were not riddled with errors.

Only one set of people have thoroughly tested the E-cat technology where Rossi did not effectively control the process, and that is Industrial Heat. The flaws in Lugano and prior reports (such as that by Kullander and Essen) were well-known and widely discussed, long before this trial.

Then, Rends repeats the Planet Rossi trope, part of the general conspiracy theory that Rends supported in the past, that the LENR investment and control is in the hands of Cherokee. None of the evidence supports that. Rends converts the fact that Darden is CEO of Cherokee into a claim that Cherokee is in control. It is much more “factual” that Darden is in control (of both), but as CEO, Darden is responsible to the investors who own the various Cherokee entities.

I have seen no evidence that Cherokee invested anything more than a de minimus allowance for Darden to use Cherokee facilities, such as a mail drop, and Fogleman is CFO of Cherokee and provided services to IH and IPH.

Cherokee did not invest in IH, outside of these services, and it is possible that Cherokee was reimbursed for them. (I recall some evidence to that effect, but it’s not important enough to research right now.) This was all de minimus. The Agreement was explicit, and included an Entire Agreement clause that disallowed any reliance on verbal assurances, which may have been actually misleading, or which may have been merely misunderstood, and the latter, given how we have seen Rossi interpret known fact, seems quite possible. Entire Agreement clauses are written and included, as standard practice, precisely to avoid, years later, arguments over he said, she said.

And there is Cherokee Investment Partners, Thomas Darden, who by all means try to get the entire IP of LENR Technology world-wide under their control with an impenetrable network of sham companies, where they do not even know themselves, witch management position they have inside this companies.

So again Rends is building a conceptual structure based on the Cherokee fantasy. There is no “impenetrable structure,” though there is privacy. For LENR investments, there is IHHI, a U.K. limited liability company, with controlling interests in the hands of Darden, Mazzarin0 (a long-time Cherokee officer), and Vaughn, who put in personal investments. That’s about control. Woodford invested $50 million, receiving preferred stock, and apparently committed $150 more if needed (as, for example, if IH had decided to accept the Doral demonstration as real and to pay Rossi in spite of the flaws — which testimony shows was their intention. That is, if they were satisfied. If not, blood from a turnip. Without solid evidence, independent, such that IH could then present it to investors (such as Woodford) to raise the $89 million to satisfy Rossi, paying Rossi was impossible. The limit of the Cherokee friends to personally raise, absent that clear evidence, was probably about $20 million.

IHHI is the sole owner of IH. IPH is a shell, holding IP, wholly owned by IH, and operated by IH. This is not a complicated structure. IH appears to be the operating company. This all seems fairly standard to me. To those who mistrust standard social structures, it seems like some highly suspicious mystification. Darden et al are venture capitalists, but with a twist: they are examples of such capitalists who seek to create activity that benefits the world, “socially responsible investment.” It’s quite appealing. But those who distrust the entire capitalist system see it from a jaundiced perspective, and the profit motive is seen as disgusting and highly reprehensible. Unless, of course, it’s Rossi who wants to make a profit. Think of the children with cancer!

IH has not attempted to “get [under control] the entire IP technology of LENR world-wide.” However, they clearly seek to cooperate with all players willing to cooperate with them. Some of their investments are under NDA, as is common with venture capital. However, there are major initiatives that have no connection with IH, funded well by other sources.

Darden et al. wanted to prevent with restraint tactics that it comes to the long-term test and they have tried with contract trickery to get out of the obligation of paying 89 million dollars.

What Rends is claiming does not fit with the disclosed facts in the case. “Fact,” legally, includes sworn testimony, and such will be accepted as fact unless contradicted. In a Motion for Summary Judgment, how a judge handles apparent contradiction would generally, be, my opinion, to seek to interpret the testimonies such that both are true. I.e, what underlying facts would allow both testimonies to be sincere, as to underlying fact, merely, perhaps, interpreted or interpretable in differing ways. A Judge could also decide that the weight of evidence in the case is strong enough to consider specific testimony false, self-serving, conclusory, or even perhaps perjury (presenting willfully misleading allegations of fact). But this is not a criminal trial.

Rends is here presenting his own fantasies as if they were fact. We will see that he then gives “evidence.” However, there is a vast body of material now available. If one holds some conclusion as true, in such a body of evidence, one will almost always be able to find some cherry-picked piece that could appear to support the conclusion. This is why, in civil cases, the standard of judgment is not “proof,” but “preponderance of the evidence.” This requires weighing all the evidence, and, in practice, in the U.S. court system, this is an adversarial process, it being assumed that both sides are represented by competent counsel, able to present all that is relevant for their points of view. I see no sign that Rends has, in fact, reviewed all the evidence. I have briefly seen, as a minimum, all of it, within certain narrow areas of the case and intend to complete this and present comparisons between the “IH story” and the “Rossi story” — and also for the third-party defendants.

Regardless of the evidence Rends may have seen, what he is presenting here is not fact, but interpretation, i.e., fantasy or belief or faith. However, I don’t use “faith” to mean “belief.” Faith is not about fact, it is a condition of trust, and, ideally, is unconditional, not dependent on fact. It is an organizing principle for behavior and can be highly useful, as long as it is not confused with fact.

All this was anticipated by Rossi and together with his lawyers and so they staged this fake event with JM-Products, to give Rossi the possibility to fulfill the contractual obligations, ie the long-term test, because Rossi could have waited for ever that Cherokee Investment Partner presented him the promised own customer and thus he would never have been able to fulfill the contract.

Here, Rends is asserting Johnson as “Rossi’s lawyers.” And what Rends is claiming here, if shown in court, is open and shut that Rossi fraudulently misrepresented the JMP situation, converting a contemplated long-term test (under full IH control, monitored by Rossi, instead of the reverse) into a Rossi-dominated and controlled faux test. Rossi had many other options, if IH (not Cherokee) had unreasonably delayed. In fact, though, the time for the GPT did expire and the attempt by Rossi and IH to extend the time failed because Rossi’s former U.S. licensee deliberately refused to sign it, and Rossi knew that and so did IH. IH, however, would have greatly preferred that Rossi stage a genuine test, and as long as they could monitor the test, as needed, it may have been acceptable to them. Rossi’s lawyer tried to present this, questioning an IH officer, as about the closing of an opportunity to earn the $89 million, but that was never closed. Rather, Rossi wanted to force IH to pay, without actually satisfying IH, while the ability of IH to pay was dependent on actual satisfaction, not merely what had guided their former behavior, to allow a possibility of success. Rossi attempts, then, to turn this into some vaguely reprehensible behavior, that they “didn’t tell him” of their problems. That contradicts sworn testimony, in fact. Rossi knew, but demanded complete control. When he excluded the IH engineer, Murray, in July, 2015, less than half-way through the test, it was sealed: IH could not possibly accept that test, regardless of the rest.

They were, effectively, willing to allow the possibility of a “fake customer,” if the actual test was clear enough, conclusive enough. IH was operating under multiple possibilities, one of which was that Rossi had a real technology, but was failing to disclose it fully, which is actually consistent with some Rossi testimony and pleadings. So maybe if there was a demonstration showing 1 MW, at high COP, they could then put pressure on Rossi to disclose it to them, and they would then give Rossi that money, or perhaps even more.

These are my interpretations, coming from a combination of the review of the evidence that I’ve been engaged in for the better part of a year, now, as well as my understanding of the field (LENR) and how venture capitalists — the best kind, called “angel investors” — operate.

Darden et al. were never interested in working with Rossi as an industrial partner, they wanted to get his IP and, above all, the formula for his fuel as quickly and cheaply as possible and then award licenses to other contract partners from the big industry and thereby become dizzying rich.

No sane investor would want to work with Rossi as an “industrial partner.” He is famously impossible to work with. If the Rossi technology were real, yes, they would then present the independent evidence they had gathered, the clear proof that devices made by the disclosed technology worked, and use it to sell sublicenses to manufacturing companies. Without that evidence, they could be committing fraud. These guys, however, are already quite “rich” by ordinary standards. IHHI expects to spend all the investment and to need more, before they have a dime of profit. There is no evidence that IH or the related companies have made a dime of revenue, so far.

At the end Rossi would have been still a marginal figure in this game.

Rossi would lose control, of about half the world market. That’s what IH was proposing to pay for, and Rossi had said that he would sell his secret for $100 million. So that is what they offered him. Did he sell his secret? What is really strange for me to see is Planet Rossi opinion that the technology was real, but Rossi did not disclose it, because IH was a collection of snakes out to steal his technology without paying fully for it. This theory — which does appear to match Rossi’s ideas (considering Murray as a “spy,” for example) — actually would completely justify IH’s refusal to pay, and, further, their counterclaims for breach of contract. It is as if the idea of Rossi Effect Reality cancels all other considerations. Call this the Peter Gluck Effect.

THHuxleynew wrote:

[a sober analysis of the Rends post. It contains a minor typographical error, obvious, referring to IH counsel as “Rossi’s lawyer.” THH mentions much of what I wrote above.]

Rends wrote:

[a clumsily edited presentation of a piece of evidence. Rends is an LF moderator, but does not have high forum editing skills, or isn’t careful about quotation.] What he gives is this, and I have corrected his misuse of the LF quotation facility:

THHuxleynew wrote:

The points above are not facts.

Quote [I.e., this is Rends’ presentation not that of THH]

“Our primary work now focuses on intellectual property development and on developing business partnerships. We want to acquire other technology rights and to find deployment partners that can implement. We want to see LENR technologies developed by larger, more sophisticated companies. We have visited two large technology-based manufacturing businesses to discuss limited, research-based licenses. We have traded drafts of such an agreement with one, and it appears they will sign something acceptable to us. Under the discussed terms, they will assess our technology both theoretically and through testing. They will have no rights to the technology, or very limited rights, and they will have to create a limited internal group with restricted access to information. That group will not share their knowledge or work on other LENR projects. IH will get their data and engineering work. Either of us can stop the process at any time. We have been contacted by several of Rossi’s unhappy licensees from outside our geographic territory. We generally have avoided such conversations. But this is happening because people see us as an aggregator of LENR technologies and a friendly supporter, which is consistent with reality and helpful to us. Our long term goal is to gather these technologies and researchers and get the technology out to others who can implement and do further research.” (Thomas Darden)


The link does not visibly reference the case document number (though it is in the fiull URL), but it does — kudos to Rends — at least give the page number, but that won’t work, because the file automatically downloads (at least for me.) This is a 8.2 MB file. I have started to warn users about large files on the Docket. They are crazy large, and I’m not sure why. I consider that sloppy legal work, slowing access to documents. In this case, though, thenewfire has combined smaller documents to make a large one. The actual file quoted is 167-2. (Rends’ page 17, of course, refers to the combined pdf page, not the page numbering within the file, . Every case document has headers giving the file access name and, if relevant, the attachment number and specific page number.)

page 17 in the file Rends provided is not where the quotation is taken from. Rends’ quote has been mangled, pieces are put together without indicating this with ellipses, and it is out of sequence.

This is the original case document in our archive:

0167.2_Exhibit_1 Email from Darden to Sloan, 3/7/2014 (OCR’d version)

We happen to have an OCR’d version. (Many Rossi documents are pure image, one reason why they are so large.) This, however, doesn’t have page anchors, so from our actual court PDF:

From PDF page 6:


We are all feeling anxious these days because we are in the middle of a very public test. The early results have been positive, which is a relief especially when compared to how we were feeling about the probability of success right before the test began. However, we are completely reserving judgment regarding the output, waiting to see the data and the Swedish professors’ conclusions.

Our primary work now focuses on intellectual property development and on developing business partnerships. We want to acquire other technology rights and to find deployment partners that can implement. We want to see LENR technologies developed by larger, more sophisticated companies.

Please reach out with any questions or comments. I would like to meet with any of you to discuss IH at any time, and I would enjoy getting the benefit of your insights. Thank you for your support.

This document was largely about the Lugano test. What Darden wrote in the bolded paragraph, with which Rends begins his quotation, as to “intellectual property development” was building and testing devices as instructed by Rossi — and with their own modifications, it appears, on occasion. They did not want to become a major manufacturer, nor even a major research organization. They wanted to develop business partnerships, which makes complete sense, given that facilitating business relationships is what venture capitalists best do.

Above that, though, was

PDF page 3


We have visited two large technology-based manufacturing businesses to discuss limited, research-based licenses. We have traded drafts of such an agreement with one, and it appears they will sign something acceptable to us. Under the discussed terms, they will assess our technology both theoretically and through testing. They will have no rights to the technology, or very limited rights, and they will have to create a limited internal group with restricted access to information. That group will not share their knowledge or work on other LENR projects. IH will get their data and engineering work. Either of us can stop the process at any time.

… [then there is lengthy material in this line, not quoted by Rends, but making it clearer. This is about how to protect intellectual property while encouraging and creating broader cooperation, something that Rossi never figured out, and hated. To Rossi, this was all considered disclosing his secrets to “competitors.” Such as Texas Instruments.]

We have been contacted by several of Rossi’s unhappy licensees from outside our geographic territory. We generally have avoided such conversations. But this is happening because people see us as an aggregator of LENR technologies and a friendly supporter, which is consistent with reality and helpful to us. Our long term goal is to gather these technologies and researchers and get the technology out to others who can implement and do further research.

By cherry-picking, changing sequence, and then by highly biased interpretation, Rends seems to imagine that what he quoted supports what he had claimed, as if no explanation is needed, it’s obvious. I don’t doubt his sincerity, what I doubt is his competence. This kind of quotation would never be tolerated in academic writing, it would be a career-killer.

Do this on Wikipedia, one could be warned, and if this was repeated, one’s account could be blocked or banned. But on LF, Rends is a moderator and was protected against frank critique by Alan Smith.

THHuxley wrote:

Would you care to extract the part of your post supported by that quote from the rest? I’d agree with it then…

I think you can support:

And there is Cherokee Investment Partners, Thomas Darden, who by all means try to get the entire IP of LENR Technology world-wide under their control with an impenetrable network of sham companies, where they do not even know themselves, witch management position they have inside this companies.

And directly contradicting the implication you make, from your own quote:

Our long term goal is to gather these technologies and researchers and get the technology out to others who can implement and do further research.” (Thomas Darden)

IH has a long-term goal of breaking LENR out into the mainstream, it’s obvious. They have a plan that would place them in a prime position to profit from it, as well, but this is highly speculative, and they know that. From the scope of their investments, and from their relationship to other serious supporters of LENR, there is nothing in the business report written by Darden to indicate the kind of greedy agenda that Rends is promoting, though I also find the attempted condemnation IH for greed — because they were considering careful IP protection — while tolerating Rossi’s obsession with secrecy for the same reason (to keep it for himself) — to be hypocritical. IH Fanboy, at least, recognizes that part of the equation. Rossi was a terrible business “partner,” and even if he has a real technology, may have created conditions for rejection or worse.

However, given the pattern of lies that has been uncovered, most of the evidence for reality has vanished. It used to be that the strongest evidence for a real Rossi Effect, as assessed by the LENR public, and especially the LENR scientists involved, was the IH investment. What happened to that?

Apparent rule on internet fora: never admit error, even if it is completely obvious. On Planet Rossi, this is totally routine, and we can see this in the lawsuit, in the arguments over “Statements of Material Fact.” IH states Fact A, which is plain and clear and incontrovertible. Rossi replies “Disputed.” And then actually confirms Fact A, but adds alleged Facts B and C. The goal is to avoid implications from Fact A. There is a complete loss of distinction between fact and interpretation. Lawyers are trained to understand the difference (as are scientists, if the training is good).

So, Rends keeps arguing that he’s right, not admitting one single point, and it is behavior like this that makes LF weak compared with what it could possibly be.

THHuxleynew wrote:

And directly contradicting the implication you make, from your own quote:

Our long term goal is to gather these technologies and researchers and get the technology out to others who can implement and do further research.” (Thomas Darden)


“They will have no rights to the technology, or very limited rights, and they will have to create a limited internal group with restricted access to information. That group will not share their knowledge or work on other LENR projects. IH will get their data and engineering work.”(Thomas Darden)

By quoting out of context, Rends makes it appear that this “they will have no rights” is about general activity in the field. This is actually about a specific conversation with one specific research partner, a company that could possibly become a competitor, and this is classic, as to how to broaden cooperation while preserving IP rights. Rends is not presenting fact, but interpretation, and warped interpretation to boot. Understanding the distinction between fact and opinion or interpretation is crucial not only to law but to science and even to understanding life and living powerfully.

That is the strategy of Cherokee Investment Partners and it is all about Cherokee Investment Partners, when Thomas Darden acts it is for Cherokee Investment Partners even if they build up dozens of mocking companies structures in US and overseas (which he himself loses the overview), to hide it:

No, there is a clear distinction, legally and practically, between the acts of an individual as an individual and the acts of that same person as an officer of a corporation. It appears that Rossi may not have understood this, though there is a paradox: he seems to believe that it mattered what hat he was wearing, i.e., Rossi the person, Rossi the owner of Leonardo Corporation, or Rossi the Director of JM Products, and, in fact, Rossi seriously blurred all these roles. Darden did not, apparently. The interest in LENR appears to have been personal. Darden’s Cherokee partners tolerated it and perhaps even supported it, but Cherokee was kept separate, and, in spite of diligent effort, Rossi’s attorneys were unable, so far, to show any Cherokee investment in IH or IHHI. It was personal money from two Cherokee officers (Darden and Mazzarino), plus Vaughn (who is not a major Cherokee officer, in spite of some claims), and people like Dewey Weaver. Majority control of IHHI, the current corporate parent, is with those Cherokee people, but not Cherokee as a corporation, which is responsible to all its investors even if controlled by Darden.

There is no understanding of how corporations work, here, and that is typical of Planet Rossi, it follows Rossi’s ignorance, an ignorance that resulted, even under the best assumptions, in his being powerless in Italy against opposition. There were apparently major corporations that wanted to support him, but he rejected them because he did not trust them. Deja vu all over again.


Q:You say you’re currently working for Cherokee Investment Partners; is that correct?


Q:Is there — are you an owner of that company?

A:Yes, I am an owner of that company.

Q:What percentage ownership do you have?

A:I think it’s 56 percent.

This is true, and completely irrelevant. This was all known, at least in approximate outlines, before Rossi v. Darden. Cherokee has a set of owners, i.e., shareholders. IH had a different set of owners. And IHHI is likewise different. Cherokee does have a practice of starting independent LLCs. It will invest, according to sources, about $25 million to start one, and then the LLC will raise additional capital. In that case, Cherokee becomes a part owner of the LLC. These are generally risky investments in environmental remediation. Many of them fail. When they fail, Cherokee loses their investment, but is not on the hook for debts beyond that. This is how corporations work, “limited liability.” Shareholders are not generally responsible for the debts of a company, and anyone doing business with a corporation must understand this. Any attorney would have told Rossi this, if he’d consulted about the Agreement with IH. If IH makes no money from the Rossi investment, if the technology is not actually transferred, and if IH cannot attract additional investment, Rossi would not get his $89 million even if the “GPT” were perfect and properly done.

IH was not a Cherokee LLC. It was distinct. Cherokee did not invest in it. Individuals, some of whom were investors in Cherokee, or officers, did invest. This is all utterly unsurprising. Darden raises capital from friends, initially.

In the legal arguments, Rossi attorneys are arguing that technology transfer was not a requirement of the Agreement. That’s a narrow and disengenuous argument, as IH counsel is showing. In a practical sense, technology transfer, successful, was essential or the Agreement would fail, IH would be unable to pay. Darden and Vaughn and Cherokee were not on the hook, at all, and this was simple standard corporate business practice. Rossi’s attempt to pierce the corporate veil was actually quite premature. If Rossi had prevailed on a simple breach of contract claim, then, if IH had been unable to pay, he might have sued anyone who unjustly profited — except nobody profited, and finding investment is not profit, legally. It is similar to borrowing money, which isn’t profit.


The page number doesn’t survive into my system. I suspect that Rends might be reading those files from within his own blog. That is a combined document, 16.9 MB. These page references do not distinguish the original source files, from PACER and could become useless if the blog copies disappear. The page references here will work for any copy of the court pdfs.

The source is 214-10 page 12 which would be cited, in case documents, as DE 214, Exhibit 9, and the deposition page is 16, and this is all totally routine and unsurprising.

…and for an owner of such a big investment company is there a lot of “I don’t remember” in this deposition!

That’s an interpretation, not a fact. (It’s a comparison between a summary fact and some kind of expectation of what would be normal, though how Rends would know what is normal for the CEO of a $2.2 billion company is beyond me. It seems he expects every detail to be clear. If Rends actually wanted to look at fact, he would compile a list of all the “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” references for Darden, and then compare them with the depositions of others. The underlying facts here are public record. There were no “I don’t know”s on that page. Rends is terminally sloppy, and not a serious writer.

And then Rends has, with no explanation:


Page 99 of that combined OCR document is the License Agreement, so … WTF?

And then Rends brings up the Chinese trip of Darden, as if this were new and relevant. It’s all part of the Planet Rossi trope, reflecting Rossi himself, that the Chinese invested hundreds of millions of dollars in IH. They certainly did not. There is some possibility, I would imagine, that a Chinese company was started, with IH cooperation, but it would be owned and controlled by Chinese, almost certainly. This is total fluff, completely off-topic.

THHuxleynew wrote:

[similarly to the above]

Rends wrote:


THHuxleynew wrote:

if you read your quote carefully:

I would advice you to read the court papers carefully:

He might take his own advice. He is projecting his own meanings all over them. They are not there with any clarity, and some are directly contradictory to established fact. Once in a while, someone debating like this on LF will actually look again and say “Oops!” Somehow we have it in our heads that this is defeat, because we think of the discussions as battles. In fact, saying “I was wrong” actually makes us, to the people who count, look good. So often we have it all backwards. And then we have the opportunity to thank someone for pointing out our mistakes. That makes us look really, really good! Even if the person who did it was being a total jerk. Take this from a 30-year on-line discussion veteran.


Q.· ·By whom are you currently employed?

A.· ·I work for Cherokee Investment Partners. I also work on behalf of a number of the different venture deals that we’ve invested in.


Again, this is 214-10 pdf page 5, document page 9. Rends, here, misreads the meaning. Who is “we”? Here he is speaking for Cherokee, which has created many ventures. IH is not a Cherokee venture, that’s quite clear. I will, below, explain what likely happened that led Rossi to think he was dealing with Cherokee. It’s understandable, but any attorney would have set him straight. And what is truly shocking is that Annesser did not set him straight, but fed the flames. For fun and profit?

One of these Investment is IH or better the mocking parade (Industrial Heat LLC, IPH International BV, IPHBV Holdings, IH Holdings International) “It’s a complicated structure” (Thomas Darden)

No, that was not what he was referring to, because Cherokee did not start them, Darden and Mazzarino did, using their own money, apparently. (Even if Cherokee money was transiently used, which I have not seen, that would have been a loan to the partners, almost certainly, for which they were personally responsible to Cherokee, not an investment by Cherokee in IH, which was a venture entirely outside of ordinary Cherokee business, and other partners would then have had a cause of action against Darden. Not something he would want to do!


Q.· ·Do you have several e-mail addresses?

A.· ·Yes.

Q.· ·Can you please provide those.

A.· ·Tdarden@industrialheatco,,,

And this is meaningless, it only shows that Darden has email addresses at these companies, which is utterly no surprise and which has no legal significance other than showing involvement.

So if you as an owner of an investment company are working for your own investment what do you call it?

It is called having one’s own life and investments in addition to working for a company. An officer on the level of Darden may have many such involvements, and if the other partners are okay with them, there is no problem. If the other partners are not okay with them, then there may be a problem to be resolved, between them. Only if there is, say, tax fraud, would there be a larger legal problem.

A company is not obligated by the actions of an officer if these are maintained as distinct, and by creating the Agreement as between Rossi, AEG, Leonardo, and IH, with an Entire Agreement clause, Darden clearly protected Cherokee, and the shocking thing here is that Annesser filed a lawsuit disregarding these legal basics, and that continued because fact was misrepresented in the Complaint. That’s gonna cause some damage for Rossi, for sure, and possibly for Annesser and Silver Law Group.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Could you define mocking parade?

I accept that Darden works for both Cherokee and IH, and that Cherokee have invested in IH. As have Woodward.

Darden does work for both Cherokee and IH. However, Cherokee has not invested in IH. Woodford also has not invested in IH, but closer: Woodford invested in IH Holdings International, Ltd (IHHI), which is the sole owner of IH, having bought all the IH shares, paying with IHHI stock. THH, be careful. This is actually an important point in the lawsuit. Rossi claimed that Cherokee owned IH, even claimed it was the sole owner, but this was never true. There is some evidence that I have not yet reviewed about how payments were actually made. However, Cherokee owns no IH or IHHI stock, there is a complete list of investors on the U.K. corporation site. Rends thinks this is all hidden, but it’s actually quite open. I first started discussing the situation when Sifferkoll commented on LF with a completely incorrect analysis of the UK corporation figures. He did not understand the documents correctly. (Woodford bought preferred stock, valued at $45 per share, whereas other stock had a par value of $0.01 per share. Woodford was not buying control and clearly trusted Darden et al. They were investing in a long-term project, and not expecting any quick profits, if any profits at all.

The business purpose of IHHI is not much understood. It is really getting feet wet, becoming active in a field that they are betting will eventually become profitable. They would want to be ready, they would want to make any mistakes now, with relatively small sums at stake, instead of later, when it might be billions of dollars at risk.

Would you like to answer my point about external research companies? Without such restrictions, how could IH validate LENR technology? It is far from what you interpret, and sort of necessary for anyone except Rossi who does not validate technology.

THH keeps trying to create a sane conversation.

Rends wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

Could you define mocking parade?

Formation of a company braid to for pretending of size and cover-up of responsibilities.

That’s incoherent English. He may have meant “charade” (third meaning). There is no cover-up, and no pretense of size. IH was created and funded with an initial stock offering that raised an immediate $11.5 million to be paid to Rossi, with a total stock offering apparently at $20 million. “Cover-up” of responsibilities could possible be based on a claim that Cherokee was “really” responsible, but that is a dead claim that only survived in the lawsuit because Rossi had claimed (or at least implied) that Cherokee was the sole owner of IH, which was far from the truth. This was an ordinary setup of an LLC for a specific venture. What is shown by the Planet Rossi tropes around this, the Sifferkollian conspiracy theories, is the ignorance of the denizens of that planet, including Rossi himself, who, if he was sincere in his claims, showed radical ignorance of legal and business basics.

THHuxleynew wrote:

I accept that Darden works for both Cherokee and IH, and that Cherokee have invested in IH. As have Woodward.

This is quibbling!

And this is spit.

THH attempts to be conciliatory, and Rends complains. What Rends is doing is continually moving the goalposts, it’s called. Rends claims A. THH points out a problem with A. So Rends claims B and C, not addressing the problem with A. So THH addresses those alleged facts, and then Rends alleges D and E and F. This is how fanatics argue. This is not the behavior of those who seek learning and cooperation. It is how Rossi thinks, in fact, and is very much how Rossi’s counsel is arguing his case, in the MSJs.

There is a vast universe of possible points to be made, but if one never focuses on specifics, all that is created is confusion. Rends shows no sign of following the arguments in the case, but only his own ideas and reactions to details he thinks important, and mostly these are about impressions confirming his belief that IH is a bunch of scuzzy thieves. Even if the bulk of the evidence in the trial, admissible evidence, shows something quite different.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Would you like to answer my point about external research companies? Without such restrictions, how could IH validate LENR technology? It is far from what you interpret, and sort of necessary for anyone except Rossi who does not validate technology.

Now, notice that Rends does not actually answer, other than a misunderstanding of the point. I would express “validate” as “obtain independent validation,” which would need to be validation independent, not only of Rossi, but of IH as well. In order to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars without risking investment fraud claims, they would need that. And they appear to have taken steps to do that, with Rossi generally complaining about it.

The plant was, so to speak, in its possession, on Cherokees land in Raleigh North Carolina.

Yes (though I don’t know about “Cherokees land,” the Plant was in the possession of IH, but Rossi was there, working for them for a year. It is not clear that Rossi was doing what the agreement contemplated, i.e., ensuring technology transfer. Darden complains about this in one document.

The indications are in what I’ve seen so far that Rossi refused to start the test, or a meaningful alternative, and wanted to focus on improvements.

Why did they do not perform a long-term test there, as foreseen in the agreement with Rossi and instead try to develop other devices, that are of no value to Rossi, but only for Darden (see above, how they tread other partners)?

Again, Rends has not realized that the “above” comment was only about a specific situation, with a commercial partner who could possibly be a competitor. What happens in Rends’ mind is that all this is mashed up and fit into a mold in which he believes.

Notice, again, the moving target. Instead of focusing on one issue, where resolution and at least some kind of agreement might be possible, Rends keeps asserting more alleged facts. The case documents explain why that “long-term” test did not happen. Maybe Rends would benefit by actually studying them and learning. How would IH answer the question? If one doesn’t know how a major party would answer a question like that, one doesn’t know the case. Any neutral analyst — or partisan analyst who wants to also see matters from the other side, which any good attorney would want to do — would know that Rends is telling the story from one side only, mostly the Rossi side, though he does stray from that below.

Because they have not found a customer? Ridiculous!

Of course. But they did find a customer and Rossi refused to cooperate, and instead argued that the “customer” he’d found in Florida would be much better. And he obviously created the impression that this was Johnson Matthey, based on many, many evidences, and on that I have seen what is the strongest evidence of perjury that I have noticed in the case.

Darden et al. did not want to pay the 89 million, that is the only reason.

That is a fantasy contrary to all the evidence in the case, other than the obvious fact: given the conditions that had arise, for many reasons, they were not going to consider Doral a GPT and pay. That is not a reason why they didn’t run the GPT. Rossi has made a big fuss over them not explicitly, in writing, telling them that Doral was not the GPT, until the beginning of December, 2015, but Rossi never told them, in writing, that it was, much before then. Nor did Rossi ever demand that the GPT start in North Carolina. We have seen no documents where he complained about the delay.

The entire concept of the GPT, though, was Rossi’s, and all the difficulties with the Validation Test and the later GPT were created by his crazy idea of a megawatt plant based on a hundred units that were not, themselves, thoroughly tested. One device design, tested exhaustively and independently, generating ten or twenty kilowatts, would have been worth the $100 million or more, and IH showed, over and over, that they were seeking that, and the Rossi claim of fraud, that they never intended to pay, is entirely contradictory to the evidence available in the case.

They had it long time in their hands to test the plant under self-chosen scientific criteria, with self-chosen experts, extensively according to the agreements and have not done it.

We do not know what they did, whether they fired up the plant or tested individual reactors from it. Perhaps there is evidence in one of the depositions, but it appears that IH attempts to test the technology did exist and, in spite of some initial results that more or less followed Rossi’s demonstrations (and probably used similar heat verification technology, they found no confirmed excess heat, or certainly, if any, far less than required.

What seems likely at this point is either that Rossi was a fraud from the start, or that he found ways of measuring power, and fooled himself with them. The possibility of the system being “flooded” was pointed out in 2011, so this was not new. So if we want to create “why not”s,

Why was the Rossi Doral test not explicitly designed to address that and other possibilities?

Why was it necessary to create a secret customer process, so that there could not be independently verified measure of plant output, by seeing how the power was dissipated?

IH was claiming inability to confirm performance. Why did Rossi not work carefully with them to insure that they were applying the technology correctly? Were there differences of opinion about how to measure heat? We know that Rossi and socks still claim that the Lugano test was correct. It would have been trivial to address those problems with independent measures. Why was this not done?

Rossi’s test in Florida is, of course, not a clean thing in the sense of a proper business deal, but under the given circumstances, at least an explicable organizational act that is even not denied by Rossi in his deposition in court.

It was denied until the evidence became overwhelming and he’d have had to perjure himself to continue his own charade. Rossi clearly lied to obtain the agreement to move the Plant to Doral. Rends may think this “explicable,” and it is, but only if we imagine an utterly incompetent and greedy Rossi who thinks like Rends. Rossi does actually state that he was desperate to get a test going. The consequence of deciding to lie in order to accomplish that goal is that the scheme fails badly, he could lose everything.

But here we have to separate precisely, between the business on the one hand side and the test results of the plant and the evaluations and the report of Penon on the other.

Who is “we” and why do we “have to” do what Rends suggests? Rossi v. Darden is the subject of the LF thread. Rends wants to talk about the plant performance, but the data we have on the Plant performance has all been contaminated by the participation and control of Rossi, now known clearly to be willing to mislead and deceive.

And Rends is avoiding directly engaging with THH, but instead keeps adding new considerations. This kind of behavior is why many LF discussions go nowhere. It’s terminally fuzzy thinking. THH knows, and wants something better. He is welcome here.

To say that the report must be faulty, or even preposterous, is not the solution, because with the means available to us from the outside, we simply do not have the possibility to produce evidence and therefore it is all but a presumption.

Rends is neglecting fact, when he began this excursion by claiming to point to it. We have facts, now, about the Doral circumstances and conditions, and many facts that do, actually, relate to plant performance, but absent a willingness to do the work of careful analysis — distinguishing established fact from merely claims — agreement will be elusive.

The discussion went on, and may, indeed, go on and on. However, I promised to give my theory of how the idea arose that IH was Cherokee.

Back in 2012, Rossi apparently tossed Darden out of his office, not interested in talking with him, but then found out that Darden was the principal officer of Cherokee Investment Partners, a $2.2 billion corporation. That got his interest.

Darden spoke of “we” without being very specific. Cherokee had gotten him in the door — and this was reasonable, this was not some random bozo with merely a few million at most to invest. Darden took no steps to distinguish his activity from “Cherokee.” However, it is quite possible that he never represented that it was Cherokee that would be investing. Rossi simply assumed it.

This would be an example of what goes around comes around. Rossi has often set up situations were he would say something that was interpreted in one way, but where he could later point out that the reality was different and he had not actually lied and the errors were made by others. He’s attempting to do this with the Johnson Matthey issue, which is not going to fly, because there are so many evidences and comments from Rossi, and the Bass emails nail it. Bass believed that JM was involved, and where did he get that idea from? He only dealt with Rossi, outside of a few conversations with IH people and investors (all heavily laced with instructed pretense).

However, definitely, Cherokee was not going to invest. Nevertheless, Darden is a principal at Cherokee and this fact would mean that Darden has access to massive investment resources, some of which might be tapped later, if necessary. So Darden being involved with Cherokee could be relevant to an ability of IH to voluntarily pay Rossi the full $100.5 million. Not as Cherokee being legally obligated, but as a matter of business connections. Darden may have made some assurances to Rossi based on that concept, and Rossi remembered it as if it were a promise on behalf of Cherokee, and that’s what he told Annesser. “The snakes lied to me!”

What Rossi believed, if he is telling the truth on that, was legally preposterous. If Cherokee was the sole owner of IH, with effectively full control, then Cherokee could become responsible for the debts of IH, I think. But this was not the case, ever.

IH owns IPH and thus the distinction between them is not crisp. Why was IPH set up? Some have suggested tax motives, and that seems possible to me. There is nothing wrong with this, and this was especially in order if other IP was being purchased or developed. LLCs are pass-through organizations, as I recall, and their profit is taxable to the owners, but, by the same token, their losses will reduce the income of the owners, so they are a kind of tax shelter. If the losses are real, those deductions are clearly allowable and not tax evasion. One way to look at this would be that if investment in LENR is actually a charitable donation, it becomes fully deductible, and immediately as soon as the losses are booked (that tax year). I’m sure that Darden et al would thoroughly understand all this and much more.

By selling the IP to IPH, a large deduction was taken as a loss, based on some estimate of actual value, probably. The $10 million investment was mostly expensed, I’d think, but I am not at all sure.

Fanning the flames

The December 2015 letter from Annesser, Andrea Rossi’s attorney, to IH counsel Jones Day, I find of high interest. Instead of attempting to negotiate a settlement of a rapidly-escalating dispute, Annesser fanned the flames.

He was, it’s true, advocating Rossi’s positions, but including Rossi’s gross misunderstandings and errors, and apparently not doing his own due diligence.

It appears that Annesser either did not understand the issues or was unwilling to distinguish between fact and interpretation. He treats the Rossi opinions and claims as established fact, and the IH opinions and claims as “disengenuous.” He pretends that matters are completely clear but, when it comes time to establish fact with sworn testimony and documentary evidence, are thin to non-existent.

It was always a puzzle, as soon as we saw the Complaint, why there was no allegation of the Second Amendment required written acceptance of the start date of the GPT, but only vague and indirect evidence, such as participation of Darden in reviewing the test plans of Penon. We did not learn until recently that Ampenergo never signed the undated Second Amendment, something that was obvious from the document included with the Annesser letter.

I had wondered if Annesser had noticed the problem. I also wondered if Annesser had accidentally included the Johnson OFAC document with the License Agreement, which revealed the customer identity. The lawsuit, and Annesser responses to the IH Motion to Dismiss, showed me that this was not a sophisticated attorney; rather, he was more like a hired thug, whose job was to attempt to intimidate the opposition.

So, anyway, here is a paragraph by paragraph analysis of that letter.

Page 1, paragraph 1, terms the IH claims “misstatements.” The difference is one of interpretation, and the fact here is that IH’s interpretation of facts differed from Rossi’s. Calling them misstatements rather than variant intepretations was slighly pugnacious; I personally wonder if Annesser understood the issues, or if he was merely proceeding based on Rossi’s rants. (We get to see Rossi Rant in some of his depositions.)

Paragraph 2 “There is no merit whatsoever” simply denies the IH position, ostensibly about the ERV and the GPT, confusing the use of Penon as an Engineer Responsible for Validation, who could be engaged for such entirely distinct from a “Guaranteed Performance Test.” A case may be made, it’s reasonable, that IH either directly supported or allowed Penon to be “engaged.” The legal question, what we used to call ages ago the $64,000 Question — it is now more than $64 million — is whether or not the power installation is a GPT. In all the documents asserted by Annesser, now, there is no evidence that Darden or IH ever accepted Doral as a “GPT,” and certainly they did not do so as a written consent. The strongest comment I have seen so far, dug up from an email to a Texas Instruments engineer, was a reference to the upcoming plant move as being a long-term test, required of Rossi. Required for what, though, was unclear. There are reasons for an agreement to specific written agreement, it is precisely to avoid controversies like this.

Page 2, Paragraph 3. Contrary to Annesser’s assertion, there is no assumption that the ERV is the same for both tests. The way the Agreement was written, there is the possibility of a continuation, it seems to be a default; however, the Second Amendment, allowing postponing the GPT, covered this with the requirement for written agreement on the start date. Any party could decline to sign, thus requiring further negotiation — and that withholding of agreement could potentially be for any reason. Because of this, many on Planet Rossi have claimed that the Agreement was unfair to Rossi; however, if IH, as an example, had unfairly defeated the purpose of the Agreement by unreasonably withholding consent, the matter could have been arbitrated or adjudicated before starting a “GPT” without a clear agreement.

It is common for business agreements to be unclear in ways that can lead to difficulties later, if the parties cease cooperation. What is apparent is that Rossi, before the December letter, had ceased cooperation, and Annesser apparently does not recognize this; at the same time, Annesser was supporting the refusal of access to the Doral Plant by IH as specifically requested, as allowed per the Term Sheet that Rossi and Johnson had signed. By refusing access, Rossi was effectively guaranteeing that IH would not accept the “ERV Report.”

It appears from documents that, while IH considered that the time had passed for the agreed GPT, they were still willing to pay for performance, but this would clearly mean “performance satisfactory to them.” Rossi did not seem to understand the importance of that, but was attempting to force IH to pay even if the conditions created by Rossi behavior made it impossible for them to raise the funds to pay. A good attorney would have explained this to Rossi and would have negotiated with Jones Day, especially in determining the basis for the Jones Day positions.

Paragraph 4. Annesser quotes the “agreed to in writing between the parties” clause, but, remarkably, does not point to or claim any written agreement on the start date. And he refers to the attached Second Amendment, which is not “agreed to in writing between the parties.” Did he notice what was missing?

Paragraph 5 has it that agreement was “unambiguous and clear that the current testing is, and always has been, being conducted as the Guaranteed Performance validation. Any claim to the contrary by your clients is disengenuous.”

For something allegedly unambiguous and clear, hard evidence has been elusive. By taking a pugnacious stance, with this mail, Annesser was sealing the rupture between Industrial Heat and Rossi. It may have been inevitable, if Rossi has been a fraud from the beginning, but if Rossi was not a fraud, the Annesser intervention probably guaranteed that Rossi would never again be able to raise substantial funding. No sane investor would risk it. And if Rossi really had something, a good attorney would have encouraged and facilitated finding ways to show that, to enable IH to raise the funding needed to pay Rossi and continue development. It’s obvious: if Rossi could not or would not show IH how to actually make devices that pass fully-independent testing (no compromises with Rossi’s paranoia), Rossi was doomed to business failure.

Paragraph 6 was Annesser’s joining Rossi in his patent paranoia. The position taken was completely incorrect. That patent was filed, I’ve understood, because the Lugano report was about to come out, and would have taken the IP into the public domain. Rossi did not write the patent, it was filed by IH, as something the Agreement allowed them to do, to protect the IP. The Dameron co-inventor issue was a choice made by IH, as IH made the Lugano reactor and Dameron may have made some contribution, even if very small, and that was merely a necessary legal precaution. Nothing was taken away from Rossi’s property; but it injured his fantasies. As a result, Rossi refused to assign the patent as required, thus violating the Licence Agreement. Way to go, Annesser, encouraging your client to violate an agreement, creating one more prior breach.

(Rossi has often claimed that IH only objected when it was time to pay. That was just another lie by Rossi, one of a stream of them. IH, in fact, objected many times, in many ways. By December, 2015, still two months before the end of the test, and over three months before the alleged “time to pay,” IH was formally objecting, and clearly because the Rossi claim to “GPT” had also become explicit. When that happened, exactly, is not yet clear to me. But the first action by Rossi that began the clear rupture was the refusal to admit Murray to the Plant in July, 2015. At that point, I imagine that IH was scratching its collective head, wondering how to deal with this bridge too far.)

Page 3, paragraph 7 continues to call “clear” what is not. The aspects of the lawsuit that covered this “Dameron co-inventor” issue were dismissed as part of the IH MTD (dismissing four out of eight counts in an MTD prior to discovery was a remarkable success rate), so we have not seen evidence on that. However, just as that patent was precautionary, so too the co-inventor issue was precautionary. Annesser, however, goes further to deny any right to “underlying IP” or “further developments,” which appears directly contradictory to the License Agreement.

Paragraph 8 goes into the issue of patent applications outside of the “territory.” This was, again, legally incorrect. Patent applications are never patent infringement, and all those applications, if I am correct, listed Rossi as inventor. Again, IH whacked that claim with their MTD. This was all fueling the fire, helping convince Rossi that he was right, that IH was attempting to screw him over.

Paragraph 9 deals with an alleged restriction, based on the language of the License Agreement, section 1, but … Annesser has missed the next words in that section, providing for the right to grant sublicenses, and also, the Right of First Offer, providing contingent rights in other territories, thus giving IH an interest in proper patenting outside of the licensed territory, and, as well, the Agreement granted rights with respect to any future developments.

Paragraph 10 is an argument over language. What is clear is that the License was granted upon the payment of $1.5 million and then $10 million. The GPT set up a conditional additional payment, but because it was possible that the GPT would not occur, that cannot be said to be truly the “price.” Rather, it was one of the considerations of the Agreement. Yes, the IH communication could be considered an “anticipatory breach,” so the legal concern is obvious. However, it would be rare, in good-faith business dealings, that a letter like Annesser’s would be appropriate. Rather, what would be crucial would be to open up communications, to seek common ground and mutual benefit. Annesser did the opposite.

Page 4. Annesser proposes a meeting with between his clients and Jones Day and their client. That would likely have been a waste of time. However, Annesser and Jones Day meeting could have been a great idea. On the other hand, by encouraging Rossi to authorize him to file the lawsuit, he created a huge pile of billable hours. It may have seemed like a great career move. Even if his client ends up being totally effed.

Who made the decision to include as defendants Cherokee, and Darden and Vaughn personally? That almost fell to the MTD, but Altonaga took as fact the Rossi claim that Cherokee was owner of IH. That decision guaranteed that Cherokee funding would be available for defense, and it also probably guaranteed that even if Rossi somehow won the suit, no corporate money (or money from those involved with major corporations) would ever again touch him. Maybe he could crowd-fund his future projects.


Appeal to consequences

Appeal to consequences is a well-known logical fallacy, amply present in the Rossi objections to the IH SOMF (statement of material facts). I have begun to compare the IH SOMF, a crucial part of the Motion for Summary Judgment, on this page.  I have looked through Paragraph 25, so far. While Rossi disputes many of the claimed facts, these are not actually disputes over the facts, which are, as expected for a MSJ, simple and clear. Rossi doesn’t like the consequences, so quibbles over inconsequential details of wording, with many irrelevancies. The most devastating effective admission, so far, is a showing that Leonardo NH and Leonardo FL were separate corporations, and, so far, no evidence of the claimed merger has appeared; rather, the opposite. They were, and apparently remain, distinct corporations with distinct ownership and state identities.

This is a formula for setting up the judge to reject all arguments. A good judge might be able to avoid that inertia, but judges are, indeed, human. Give them a series of spurious arguments, a real argument might be lost in the noise.

Mats Lewan buys condo in Cloud Cuckoo Land

Well, that headline is perhaps a bit dramatic. But, I’ll confess, I was shocked by seeing the following from someone whom I had treated as a friend, long into the past (back in my Wikipedia days), and with whom I had positive correspondence.

I had been considering writing a post about a Lewan blog entry that was mentioned in a comment here.

Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ (November 25, 2015)

After an interesting interview, which reveals that Fabiani clearly believes that Rossi’s work is real — and that he has seen amazing things — Lewan gives this:

Since mid-February 2015, Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat are running a one-year commercial trial on a customer’s site with a heat plant producing 1 MW. The plant is made up of four 250kW modules, each based on E-Cat technology. Unless something unexpected happens, the trial, which is controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, should be concluded by February or March 2016, and the results should then be presented.

In the comments, Lewan explains a bit:

November 25, 2015 at 11:25
Everyone I have talked to confirm that a major independent third party certification institute is involved in the control of the 1-year test and that this institute will also be able to confirm the results when they are presented. I have no further proof though.

Mats does not tell us — at all — who “everyone I have talked to” is, but we know he talked with Fabiani, who would know of the involvement of a “major independent third party certification institute,” and we know he talked to Levi, who might have known of such. And did he talk with Rossi?

Since there was no such institute involved, only Penon, we know that Lewan relied on unreliable sources. He does acknowledge having no “further proof,” but that’s weak. It implies that the evidence for what he wrote was strong. That’s not the only problem.

IH allowed the installation, but as a sale of power, and only secondarily as a trial, with the idea that if Rossi clearly demonstrated to IH that there was substantial power generated, they might voluntarily pay him $89 million on that basis. The Doral demonstration was not the “Guaranteed Performance Test” of the IH-Rossi-Ampenergo Agreement, because Ampenergo explicitly refused to sign the Second Amendment allowing the GPT to be postponed. Rossi covered up this fact in his Complaint, though it was obvious from the start that the Ampenergo signature was missing. The Rossi attempts, in his pleadings, to convert some kind of vague consent to a test into the specifics of a GPT, even though there were obvious elements of a GPT missing; and not only signatures, but matters of substance, such as the ability of IH to actually observe the “test” in detail. Rossi excluded IH experts, twice (in July and in December).

The whole thing stunk, from lies about the customer at the start, to what appears now to be a hastily-invented “heat exchanger” that nobody saw, and that would have been very visible. Yet Mats is still stuck in his glorious past, where he was the world’s foremost confidant of Andrea Rossi. He wonders about conflict of interest, but has a huge one, a subtle one. When people criticize Rossi, or threaten his interests and plan in some way, he cuts them off, and he had done this over and over, and Mats knows this behavior. If any of the Lugano team had questioned what Levi and Rossi were doing (and Rossi was apparently there the whole time, and the Swedish team, not, not what the Lugano Report implied), they’d have been history.

Mats has never cleaned up that mess. Believe me, if I find a major error here, even years later, I will at least annotate it. That is what a responsible journalist will do, if he or she can.

So then we have this sequence on E-Cat World:

Critique of the Smith Report from the JONP

Mats LewanSunday, April 9, 2017 9:54 AM [post time extracted from HTML]

I think there’s a list of advisors to IH somewhere. Anyone remember where it is?

Andreas Moraitis Mats Lewan • a day ago

214-23, p. 7.

That is here. It was actually a list of potential places for investment, and then included a list of advisors. None of this was a description of actual payments. Jed Rothwell is on the list of advisors, and has continually maintained that he has received no payments from IH, but this was used to, once again, accuse him of being paid by IH. He is known to have visited them in North Carolina, and that was then misinterpreted to indicate that he had visited the Plant in Florida (which he has always denied, and which would then make a certain IH response to interrogatories into perjury — unless Rossi arranged the visit, which seems a tad unlikely, given that Rossi excluded Rothwell from visiting him in Italy years before — and in spite of that, behind the scenes, Rothwell was a supporter of Rossi, arguing that people he trusted had seen the technology and it was real). Rothwell later reassessed that opinion, apparently after seeing data from Penon, which had all the obvious defects that have become public now, with the court filings.

Lewan is clearly not using the Rossi v. Darden resources here. They may be searched. The core page is the Docket page. Yes, it’s a huge amount of information. So resources are being created for analysis. That takes time. We just had a huge amount of data dumped on us. Much of it is redundant, but then, much is not.

The best organization is probably found in the Motions for Summary Judgment, where each party puts its best and strongest case forward. I was going to start with an analysis of the Rossi MSJ, but the exhibit references were such a mess (almost all incorrect), and it depended so strongly on a legal claim that has failed, the attempt to exclude all IPH claims based on an allegedly defective corporate deposition, that my opinion became that making it the core of a study would be a waste of time, so I started with RvD: Study of 203:IH Motion for Summary Judgment

This document also includes all the support paragraphs from DE 207. This is the case as it appears from the IH Motion. Anyone who actually wants to understand Rossi v. Darden would do well to study this. But it’s huge, still. I will be going through it, point by point and the first analysis will be looking for what is clearly established as fact, and what is not, what might remain legitimately controversial. At first impression, some of the IH claims are that, not as clear as required for Summary Judgment, they might require determination of fact by a fact-finder, i.e., a jury. However, there are many layers to this IH strategy, and the strongest aspects are likely to blow the Rossi case out of the water, leaving only the counterclaims active. At that point, settlement becomes far more likely.

Now, to come to what astounded me, though I’d certainly seen signs a year ago, that Mats was falling for a conspiracy theory, in spite of his warning to Sifferkoll.

Mats Lewana day ago

Anyone knows what the rules are for presenting evidence that hasn’t been brought up earlier, when the case goes up in court in June?

Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago

Go ask Abd. Double dare you. (-;

Mats Lewan Josh G • a day ago

BTW do we know if Abd works for IH or not?

Once upon a time, Mats was a reporter and would have asked me that question directly. Now he asks with a “we” that is a narrow group of people. IH would obviously know if I work for them, and so would I, so, for starters, I’d be excluded from “we” or the question would be meaningless. This question was brought up many times, and Rossi himself accused me of being a paid puppet.

At one time, Mats was officially staff at LENR Forum. That disappeared. This blog is open for anyone to comment, and author privileges will be granted to real people, and Mats is real. Even if a bit deluded. This went on.

Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago

Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.

SG Mats Lewan • 19 hours ago

I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.

I am attempting to respond there, the editor keeps locking up. But this would be it:

I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.

I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)

One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.

Mats would be most welcome as a participant, but he lost his status as a neutral analyst some time ago. He could recover, if he chooses to. It would take some work, and his excuse has been that he is too busy. It would be fun to guide him through the maze of documents in the case. One step at a time, which is rarely done. Mostly people start with conclusions (on more than one side — I hope that readers realize there are more than two “sides” here).

As to Mats’ question, others have answered reasonably, but not necessarily addressing the point clearly, and Mats himself summarizes it incorrectly:

Mats Lewan GiveADogABone • a day ago

In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.

It’s somewhat shocking that Mats will guess, but he declared previously that he did not have time to do actual research, the kind expected for a journalist.

The reality is that witnesses will be on the stand, and either side may ask them questions, and they may answer outside of what they said before. However, if what they say is new, an attorney may object. To introduce new evidence will require the permission of the Judge. It is not exactly a “blanket ban,” but failure to disclose evidence to the other parties can result in sanctions, all the way up to total dismissal of a party’s case.

“Contradiction” is not a characteristic of evidence, but of the assessment of evidence. Evidence could not be excluded based on contradiction. Rather, if there is contradiction in admissible evidence, there can be a question for a jury to resolve.

However, what may not be realized here is that the Motions for Summary Judgment do not necessarily disclose all the evidence. Rather, there is a huge volume of evidence — truly enormous — that was disclosed in discovery. As long as it was disclosed, it may be introduced at trial. What is disclosed in discovery is generally attested under penalty of perjury.

IH has adduced enough evidence, my present opinion — remember, I am in process of studying the materials — to obtain summary judgment on the core claim of Rossi, breach of contract re the $89 million, and if that claim is gone, so is the rest of his lawsuit. Because, then, there would be no trial on that claim, we can expect Rossi to go all-out in his Reply. We do have that Reply at this point, but I have not studied it. I will, comparing each point with the evidence we have.

Drama ensued. See the comments below. Someone apparently spoofed Mats Lewan, using his name and, most importantly, his real email address, so that the avatar displayed would be picked up from Gravatar, which we have enabled. The second post of this user started out more or less innocuously, but then the user edited it to add a gross sexual reference. Mats complained on LENR Forum, which is a bit odd, since I’m banned there and don’t necessarily see everything. However, THHuxleynew pointed out that post here. There are some aspects of possible interest in what ensued.

On LENR Forum, Mats Lewan wrote (creating a new topic)

Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at…ndo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports.
Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.

These comments are NOT made by me.
They are false and fraudulent, made up in short, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this, I expect him to delete those comments immediately.

Apparently I read the second remark before it was edited to add the truly offensive remark. The rest of the material in those posts matched, at least to a degree, what Mats had posted elsewhere. Impersonation is still a major public offense, not to be tolerated. I might have some view that I might express in one context, but may not want to express it in other contexts, and that should be my right. But trolls may disagree.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site. It will immediately let you do this – I think. Then he would certainly get it, and also he could check IP etc… Furthermore the correction gets seen faster than if you wait for Abd.

THH was completely correct. Mats’ response was relatively unskillful. The basic harm — someone thinking that was him — could be most quickly addressed by Mats himself posting a comment exposing the impersonation, and confirming this by email from his known email address. Because Mats has not posted, his first comment would need to be approved, though it might be approved simply by using that same email address. (It was on his personal domain, and he obviously uses it wherever the gravatar shows up.)

Posting on LENR forum then drew more attention, exactly what trolls often want, and the obscene comment was then repeated there, and obviously was read by moderators who didn’t care.

Alan Smith wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site.

I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.

Classic Alan Smith, useless snark. Why not? I used to have direct email communication with Mats. Has Mats fallen into a Krivit hole? I will agree in one way, it is odd that Mats did not communicate directly with me. Maybe the fumes on Planet Rossi finally created too much mind-rot. It would also have been somewhat effective if Mats had responded to my comment on E-Cat World, in reply to his question there, since I get notification of responses.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.

I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.

And indeed THH did post here, something actually useful. Alan Smith continues to emit smoke:

Able but unwilling I expect. I would be too.

Yes, Alan would be. Why? For the same reason that Alan Smith banned me from LF: he can’t stand my presence, he knows I can see what he does. So all this does come up:

AlainCo wrote:

Abd answered and leaked the IP of the fraudster…cuckoo-land/#comment-2382

[This link is a bit better, juicier. –Abd]

If there is disagreement with Abd, I estimate it is more about Doxxing/Transparency/Shaming vs Privacy than about tolerance to fraud.

Thanks, Alain. Zero tolerance here for fraudulent posting (which is not about disagreements, nor would it be about ordinary socking. Socking that impersonates another is generally illegal, and Mats had good reason to expect me to correct the situation. He wanted me to delete it. Because there were responses, I elected to not delete, but changed the user name to “(spoofed) Mats Lewan,” and used strike-out for the text, only actually deleting the obscenity. I think it is of interest that someone would spoof Lewan, and I think that it could be useful to find out who that would be.

And that is why I revealed the IP. I also have more data, obtained from the server logs. True administration at LENR Forum would very likely be able to identify the fraudster, at least with other accounts. However, what I found was that not only do moderators there not have access to IP information, neither do administrators; someone has server access, and that is probably Barty and the Owner. So if Barty wants to address this, he could. I’d happily correspond with him. I have also provided the information directly to Mats.

This is all standard stuff for WikiMedia Foundation administrators, and I was one. Privacy is respected, but the right to privacy is lost when one commits certain offenses. (Access to normally private IP information is confined to Checkusers and others with that level of privilege on WMF wikis, but any stand-alone blog owner, running on their own domain, has access to that information, it is in the raw server logs.)

LENR Calendar wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.

Abd wouldn’t be able to tell which user is the real one. Mats here has been verified.

Oh, I was able to tell. I already had been suspicious about the IP, but Lewan accessing the internet from student housing wasn’t impossible, so I didn’t reject the post on that basis. Yes. The LF Lewan account is long-standing, thus verified, which I immediately knew; however, at the first plausible allegation of spoofing, I’d have quarantined that post so that it could do no harm, pending resolution. I also have had direct email communication with Lewan, and verification would be trivial.

There is no rush, but perhaps, out of this, Lewan will start to help clean up the mess that he helped to create. I’d be happy to assist. One easy step at a time.

From Russia, with love

October 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi:

What do you think of the sceptics that continue to say the E-Cat will not work?
From Russia, with love,

Andrea Rossi
October 30, 2015 at 12:40 PM

D. Travchenko:
Maybe they are right: at this stage I cannot exclude they are. Time is gentleman, we’ll listen from him the truth.
Warm Regards,

On LENR-Forum, Paradigmnoia wrote:

Rules against doxxing prevent me from being explicit, but DT (from Russia with love) has signed off at least once with another pair of initials familiar to us.

Doxxing as an internet offense arose as a protection of anonymity, but not as an encouragement of sock puppetry, which is also normally considered an offense. Forum administrators have access to post information information that would normally reveal sock puppetry. As well, doxxing of “public figures,” i.e., internet identities revealed elsewhere, where the alleged “puppet masters” are public figures, has always been, on sophisticated fora, allowed and is even considered necessary. Consider Wikipedia articles about government officials “anonymously” edited from the office of the official.

LENR Forum has never acknowledged banning a user for “sock puppetry.” It has warned and sanctioned users for exposing sock puppetry (rightly or wrongly). “Doxxing” has no been clearly defined. Claiming sock puppetry is not, in ordinary internet-speak, doxxing. In this case, P. points to what I recall (but could not readily find) as an example where a poster on JONP apparently accidentally signed the post as “A.R.”

The poster in question has commonly posted under what may be a real name, DTravchenko, but the content has been pure Planet Rossi, using common Rossi tropes. Because this is all (AFAIK) on Rossi’s blog, JONP, only Rossi knows for sure, but … pointing out a clear fact, publically accessible, where, if the fact is true, does not reveal the true identity of an actual and unique person, not the known public figure, is not “doxxing.” It is attempting to understand the public record. If DT is Rossi, there is no person harmed by the revelation, i.e., becoming subject to harassment, as might have happened, say, with the doxxing of “Thomas Clarke.” However, even the Thomas Clarke case is bizarre. Thomas Clarke is a real name, so all that “doxxing” did was to identify the specific person with that name. Then the allegation can be made that Thomas Clarke continued to post using a pseudonym. Is pointing this out “doxxing”?

Because we think of “doxxing” as Bad, we want to fit the actions into a category, so we can know if it is Good or Bad. This is common — and defective — ontology. Revealing the pseudonyms of Thomas Clarke is a trivial exercise, anyone who cares can find out. Because Pseudonym is so trivially identified with the real identity — when that identity could have easily been hidden, it is not as offensive as some deeper doxxing with more possible real-life harm would be. For example, there is an English fellow who pretended to be a Muslim and who went on the pilgrimage, and who wrote about it. He used a pseudonym. Revealing his real-life identity could expose him to harassment or worse. That would be serious, and highly offensive doxxing.

If a professional supports Rossi, at this point, it could indeed harm their professional reputation. There is a lesser possibility of harm from any professional’s support of LENR. So I’m sympathetic to desires for anonymity; however, this is a double-edged sword. Anonymous testimony is only useful for creating avenues for confirmation, it cannot be accepted as truth (i.e., with probity depending on the character of the witness).

Some writers, anonymous, develop a reputation for reliability. There are a few anonymous writers whose analyses can — my opinion — generally be trusted, and a few real-name authors who are quite untrustworthy. So the whole issue is complex, not simple.

I was unable to find D. Travchenko in internet searches connected with LENR and Rossi, except as comments on JONP, and then quoted elsewhere. It would be odd for someone with such an intense and frequently-expressed interest in Rossi to not comment or show up anywhere else. That, together with the obvious Planet Rossi points of view, which are quite idiosyncratic (aspects may show up with any Rossi supporter, but there are particular modes of language that are common only with Rossi and certain possible sock puppets), indicates a likelihood that DTravchenko or DT (“From Russia with love”) is Andrea Rossi, setting up questions he wants to stand or to answer, but maintaining deniability.

If DT were to post on LENR Forum, for example, that would create administrative knowledge there indicating identity. The same with E-Cat World. Rossi may trust Frank Acland more, but ultimately, Rossi trusts nobody. How he treated Fabiani is appalling. One can see in the Fabiani correspondence how torn he is between his loyalty to Rossi and his professional responsibility (to provide information to IH, all set up by Rossi — the actual contract was between IH and USQL and a half-owner of USQL was Florida Energy Trust, which Rossi has claimed — or hinted, he’s not completely explicit, he left room for “plausible deniability” — is essentially him.)


Rossi refuses to comment on RvD. Yeah, right.

And, of course, E-Cat World picks up on it. So far, nobody seems to notice that there is no specified source for the factual claim, i.e., that Smith has claimed such and such. But first, an actual direct comment on case issues:

April 4, 2017 at 10:36 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- was JMC directed by you?
2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?
3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?
4- did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?
5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?
6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?
7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?
8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?
Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?

Andrea Rossi
April 4, 2017 at 1:37 PM

Evidence in documents speaks for itself and says:
1- yes
2- yes, since 2014
3- no
4- never
5- never
6- never
7- yes, he demanded Jim Bass to give good reference to his investors
8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa
Warm Regards,

Control the questions, you can control the answers to create desired impressions. The above is a direct comment on case issues, contrary to Rossi’s repeated intention not to comment. The questions are designed to allow him to answer with “truthiness,” but are highly misleading.

1- was JMC directed by you?

He now answers Yes, but I will be reviewing all his answers and comments on this. That JMC (-> JMP) was created and managed as Rossi’s idea, with Rossi being in full charge, with there being no independence other than purely formal — and that very weak –, is entirely contrary to the representations made in negotiations leading up to the Term Sheet and the later transfer, as well as many, many comments Rossi made on JONP, and his comments in emails where he had, for example, a talk with the Director of JMP, as if this were someone else, all of which is evidenced with documents from Rossi, as well as others entered as sworn testimony, in support for the IH Motion for Summary Judgment.

2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?

The real question would be when Darden knew. Rossi says much and the meaning can be vague. Rossi may be, here, assuming that because he said X, Darden therefore knew X. However, very much that Rossi said was in contradiction to X. Here, he acknowledges himself as Director. However, he has also claimed that Bass was the Director. But Bass was hired by, worked for, and was responsible to Rossi.

The customer was not at all “independent,” as repeated claimed by Rossi.

3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?

On paper, no. In practice, it was Johnson, entirely following Rossi’s instructions. On paper, it was a trust created by a friend of Rossi, and who put in no money and took no part in JMC/JMP activities. Rossi created “plausible deniability.” But he also created impressions in the minds of others, quite the contrary of his later denials. Creating those impressions can be civil fraud. (Civil fraud does not require mens rea (evil intention), it could be inadvertent. If the false impressions were reasonable, i.e., they could be reasonably formed, civil fraud may exist.)

4 – did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?

He did express concern. However, the question here would be intended to ask if Darden ever complained to Rossi about it. Until Darden knew the facts about JMC/JMP, fully, he’d have been unlikely to complain, but this depends on when he knew these facts. He apparently figured out that Johnson was Rossi’s lawyer, before the Plant was moved, and Darden concluded that a lawyer was unlikely to be lying, so he went ahead. That did not establish Rossi as the Director of JMP, because it continued to be represented, apparently, that there was a real customer, not Rossi, as owner. The identity of the owner was not disclosed, except that we see clear evidence that it was implied that it was Johnson Matthey, and Johnson participated in maintaining that impression.

5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?

At the time in question, JMP was known as JMC, and there is clear evidence that the Johnson Matthey connection, very obviously implied in some way (and then Rossi said something like “I should not have mentioned them” — clearly implying that he had mentioned them. Where else did they get the idea?)

Rossi is lying here, and it is possible that this will be his most direct and deepest downfall.

6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?

JMP did not exist during the “Validation Test.” He must mean the alleged “Guaranteed Performance Test.” Darden already had information on the owner, from the OMC certification, and it was false, not true when Johnson signed that. The owner was not a “U.K. entity,” it was a U.S. trust, with Johnson fully in legal control of it.

7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?

This is not established in the case, this is all Rossi Says. Rossi thinks that IH “promotion” is important. It is not. IH was deceived, willfully, by Rossi, and made comments on occasion reflecting that deception. Darden also expressed reservations, a concern about the alleged customer. Rossi never points to the contrary evidence, just to his own justifications and rationalizations.

8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?

Because Rossi refused it. Rossi was in complete control of JMP. His answer here was:

8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa

Liar. The Term Sheet does not “veto” that. It does not mention the “area of JMP,” nor any restriction on IH access, even though later Rossi rejected IH access to the Plant, and Johnson supported this when access was formally requested in December. It also contains representations that were false when written and agreed to.

Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?

This comment shows a common Rossi trope. The court does not publish the documents, the parties file them and then PACER makes them available to the public. The parties derive “issues” from the documents, and Rossi is here presenting his defense. The defense can be false or misleading, but “documents” are, at this stage, sworn testimony. For the first time in the case, beginning with his depositions, Rossi could go to prison for making false or misleading statements.

More will be added later.

How is the weather on Planet Rossi?


Peter Gluck posts links to his blog in many places, and I saw this yesterday. I’m mentioned (the day before). Speak of the Master of Hot Places….
EGO OUT, April 6, 2017

A year of litigation- the scales of Justitia have  great loads of stuff- facts and assumptions. Facts have weight the assumption not- just now a selection/separation process takes place. 4-5 months and we will have the Verdict.

Indeed. However, we might have some verdicts, at least, within roughly a month, how long I expect it will take to handle the three pending Motions for Summary Judgment.

For the time given, the IH party is making huge efforts to kill the Penon ERV Report.

Actually, this is Peter’s myopic version of what is happening. Continue reading “How is the weather on Planet Rossi?”

Studying Rossi v. Darden Motions for Summary Judgment

Motions for Summary Judgment are handled by Federal Rule 56.

While it can be fun to express opinions, simple or complex, without study, just because we can (especially if we admin the blog) it is much more fun, long-term, to Know WTF one is talking about. Capiche?

Hence, when the Parties went wild March 22 with Motions, I realized that to study these motions would be haphazard at best, unless tools were created …

I have compiled a neutral study tool, one of a number to be put together:

RvD: Study of 207:IH Statement of material fact supporting MSJ

This has anchors at each paragraph that can be used to quickly reference it. (The IH MSJ references these paragraphs.) It also has links to specific pages of evidence, which then can facilitate putting together all the evidence (at least from the IH side) for a particular point. Continue reading “Studying Rossi v. Darden Motions for Summary Judgment”

If Rossi doesn’t know it, it is Bad

On LENR forum, Alan Fletcher wrote:

I read a lot of today’s responses and a lot of the exhibits. Didn’t notice anything really new, except for 236-7, Darden’s (I think) hand-written notes, including sending a unit to Boeing without Rossi’s knowledge.

This is the entry in our docket index (at this moment):

236-07 – Exhibit 7 Notes, Cassarino (Ampenergo) (? not confirmed, from memory)

I wrote “not confirmed” because I remember this being Cassarino but have not confirmed it. How would this be confirmed? Look in the main page:

04/04/2017 0236.0_IH_Opp_to_SOMF_214_Rossi MSJ – search for “Ex. 7” … this finds

Paragraph 27 refers to this as “AEG Dep. Ex. 20”.

The AEG Deposition is Exhibit 4 in this set. In the index to exhibits, we find that Exhibit 20 is used on p. 145. This is not one of the pages shown; it may have been the first reference. However, searching Exhibit 4 for “Exhibit 20,” I find reference to it:

Page 207. These are clearly Cassarino’s notes of his conversation(s). So I am removing the question from our docket index.

Now, Boeing. IH apparently arranged with Boeing to test a reactor, and the results were negative. Did Rossi know? I think I recall Rossi complaining that he wasn’t allowed to be there to make sure the test went well, but this may have been after the fact, I don’t know at this point if he knew about the test before it was done.

I think Alan Fletcher doesn’t realize the implications of what he wrote. Ampenergo was Rossi’s long-term supporter, those people went back before the E-Cat. I can see that Rossi’s attorneys are trying to imply that the refusal of Ampenergo to sign on to the Second Amendment still left it valid as between IH and Rossi, but breaking up the “parties” to the agreement like that was certainly not contemplated. And the Second Amendment then required the signature of all parties to the starting date.

If it could be shown that IH explicitly accepted to be bound by the GPT terms, it is possible that Rossi could claim estoppel. But it looks like they never did that, and Rossi never, as far as I’ve seen, claimed the Doral installation as being a GPT until very late in the game, not before it started, which is what would have been necessary as a substitute agreement.

Rather, IH expressed a willingness, apparently a number of times, to pay Rossi anyway if they could make devices themselves that would pass independent testing, even if it wasn’t fully “GPT compliant.” If they could do that, raising $89 million would have been easy for them. They had the commitment from Woodford.

If Rossi has something real, he completely shot himself in the foot by setting up a phony customer to allow him to personally control a “test,” lying about this repeatedly, refusing to allow Murray to visit in July, 2015, and by leading or following Annesser in refusing entry in December, 2015. But the most likely reality here is that the Rossi Effect was a collection of artifacts, at best, and, at worst, deliberate fraud.

And some of the Rossi declarations under oath look like perjury to me. For perjury, there is an insanity defense.