This post has anchors on pages of the written memoranda by Cassarino. The form of the anchor is “p[n]”, i.e. [post URL]#p1 refers to page 1.
Ampenergo is often neglected in recent Planet Rossi ideation. Ampenergo was the original U.S. Licensee for Rossi technology; these people had worked with Rossi before, and I have recent information that they still “like” Rossi. After all, they invested in him, that investment was respected, and they may even have made a profit, because of IH payments to them pursuant to the License Agreement and side-agreements.
They are also investors in Industrial Heat, holding shares issued in lieu of cash payments (but they were also paid mostly in cash). All IH share holdings were converted to equity in IHHI (or repurchased).
Ampenergo deliberately refused to sign the proposed Second Amendment that would have allowed the Guaranteed Performance Test to proceed at a later date than set in the License Agreement. The effect of this was legally clear: beyond the original deadline, any extension would be voluntary, and not binding unless clearly agreed upon; for $89 million, one would imagine that sane partners would insure that all of this was in writing; at that level of importance, relying on vague assurances, easily subject to misinterpretation, would be something that no lawyer would encourage. Unless he wants to earn huge fees later.
Some are puzzled by Ampenergo’s refusal (And Rossi claimed to not understand it either. I don’t find it difficult to understand. They appear to have trusted Industrial Heat. A real Rossi Technology would be worth, easily, billions or even trillions of dollars. No sane investor would piss off Rossi by relying on some technicality, if working with him has the possibility of creating that value.
A single test, evaluated by a single “ERV”? A single test can fail for many reasons, and Ampenergo did not want to risk that. They were not blinded by Rossi fanaticism. A real technology, as demonstrated by an ability of an independent organization to make practical devices, would be unstoppable. And nobody sane would risk losing that by creating possible causes of action, unless they had become convinced that the technology either didn’t work, or had not been transferred.
I had (tentatively) concluded much about the history behind Rossi v. Darden before studying document 243-1, Greg Cassarino’s notes, which have generally verified these impressions.
The amount of ale you rock …
Thank you Ahlfors pointing this out. That 247-01 is interesting read indeed. There are some other details also. Recommend others to dig it, since it is straight from horses mouth without someone says and that copy adds on perspective how things went.
Who is the horse? This is Cassarino’s handwritten notes of conversations with Industrial Heat. It is “someone says,” but dated and backed with depositions. It shows what was being said by IH in 2014 and 2015, recorded by someone who was (and maybe still is) a strong but sane supporter of Rossi. (I know that some think this an oxymoron, but Ampenergo did have successful prior business relationships with Rossi, perhaps in addition to some failures). I join with Argon (who is generally “Planet Rossi”) in recommending careful reading of 247-01. Here, I will transcribe it, as best I can. I will also, because this is a blog, comment on it; but I distinguish comments from fact. Some comments may point to fact, some may be opinion, and that’s the way the world works.
Corrections and additional comments are welcome. Comments are in indented italics. Bold indicates apparent emphasis in notes.
IH 3 Oct 2014
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873
There is no area code 890, but I have not tested dialing it. Someone may be able to decode this, I’m moving on…
Joe Pike > big investor in IH
Pike is definitely an IH insider. Was this call from Pike? That’s how it could look to me, given the placement at the beginning. Pike had a scandal in his past (long ago), that could militate against full trust in him, but, here, it appears to be his money at stake. However, see page 7. Cassarino notes “IH/JT)” with the same numbers. I.e. Vaughn.
Former Invesco person.
Woodford > first deal / public deal
$25-50 M (up to $200 M) (or more if they need to buy out Rossi)
Dutch entity > will become parent
Dutch entity > currently a subsidiary of IH. IH’s IP has been transferred to Dutch entity
IH will likely
Dewey Weaver > IP attorney
2-50 yrs away?
Test report > as early as the 10th October
Tom and Andrea are recharging reactors.
Swedish report. 16 Oct. 2014
IH (877) 877-868-6863 17 October 2014
Provisional patent application needed prior to test publication but lithium and other things may have been divulged in the past.
This is why that patent app, with Dameron as co-inventor, was thrown together and filed. Without it, the Lugano report would have invalidated all succeeding applications. Ross went ballistic over something harmless (and possibly protecting his IP). If Dameron contributed anything new (even if minor), patent law would require he be listed on the application).
Dewey / IP
David Perry and T. Barker > 4 weeks away to completion of 1 MW
Attorney Johnson – Rossi’s lawyer in Miami; real estate attorney; owner of entity in Miami; may have connection to a chemical company (not verified).
Device sent to Boeing > Rossi does not know.
IH 31 October 2014
Securing initial funding
$50 million > maybe tranched
Netherlands Co. > parent Co.
IH, LLC Shareholder agreement for new entity.
See below, presumably McKubre. Possible non-Rossi consultations.
Post [?} funding > additional testing
2015 > better understanding of theory
Hagelstien [sic] & Storms
Hagelstein acknowledged funding (about theory, it is unclear about relationship with Swartz, Hagelstein’s friend and commercial claimant.). Storms not. May never have come to agreement with IH. (No specific relationship with McKubre is known, as well, but IH is generally tight with the entire CMNS community.)
IH > not involved in test; did not know that fuel and spent fuel would be tested; may be Rossi’s play to get Nobel; he knows he has to reveal this; but still protect the catalyst and other proprietary info.
T. Barker, Barry Wes 7 or 8 guys
Dameron and, presumably, West, people working with the devices. Number of Lugano authors? Reference is unclear.
31 Oct. 2014
Strength of magnetic field
magnetic field of electricity flowing in wire
coils arand iron core T3
1000 x stronger than coils only
9 Jan 2015
Installation of 1 MW > light industrial plant; [using?] steam
Rossi removed gauges to show water level; said it wasn’t part of original specs; (this is a safety issue!) Startup first week of Feb.
Dewey > Russian scientist
did not duplicate But [or ? not] credible; duplicated without knowing key details
30 – 60 days to close on additional funding; may require additional structural changes
AEG 16 Jan 2015
1% IH equity not recorded on AEG books (ref AEG GL 2013 p. 3)
GL= General Ledger
K-1 to AEG from IH notes AEG capital contribution of $500,050, but this is not on AEG books
LLCs pass on profit and loss to investors, per IRS form K-1. That sum was probably a payment of stock in lieu of cash and could represent taxable income; then this could come back as loss as spent. This gets complicated.
How should 1% be recorded by AEG?
27 Jan 2015
Christian Burney and Jim Padden
$505,050 [sic] 721 tax free contribution
707a cash taxable
1% equity IH > 0 cost basis on AEG books
This seems reasonable. It is conditional income. Stock becoming worthless will not represent a deductible loss, but the initial receipt will not be taxable. A bird in the hand, two in the bush. The Devil is in the details, there may be technical details to watch out for. If IH stock is ever worth anything, then a realization of any value will be taxable income.
Planet Rossi seems to consider any investment in IHHI as being into the pockets of Darden and Vaughn. Quick summary: not. If they treat it that way, they could be screwed.
IH/JT 13 Feb 2015
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873
Woodford Group UK > seeking investment
Wants entity moved from Netherlands to UK
$50M round from Woodford
Woodford (Paul M.) Visited Rossi; Rossi seemed like a crazy inventor.
Provision[al] patents filed on Lugano Report.
Tested One Device > Boeing / No success.
Want to do another test.
IH wants to start their own testing in NC now that Rossi is gone
JTNI [?] looking @ other LENR technologies
20 April 2015
This is printed text, not handwritten.
JT & Karl
Hoping to make other acquisitions in sector
Today, IH, LLC restructuring
4.7% $50M UK investor
Total capital spent to date: low $20’s M
1 Billion valuation
Investor new capital Prev??? can make additional investment [?] $2 B Valuation
JT end game: just crazy enough; just capable enough to make something; then neg. with big players $100B – $150B
IH/JT 26 June 2015
2 more positions in LNER
UK deal closed
Smart [?] / Shawn Spears [?]
Albuquerque [/] Urbana Champagne Miley > new investments
New Facility in Triangle
Rossi > Hernia?
Paul Amercraft [Lamacraft] manager at Woodford Invest Fund with JT [visit] to Rossi and saw Rossi’s “caginess”
1 MW = 4 x 250 KW
Part of units are working; only ones made in Italy; but refueled ones made by IH are not working.
IH never agreed that Penon could do the audit
Real audit must be done > IH must be able to replicate Rossi
What’s behind the wall?
If IH feels good about things, they may not push him on the 1 MW test. IH does not want to piss him off.
IH/JT (877) 868-6863 # 890-948-7873 7 Aug. 2015
6 – 12 weeks
IH trying to support his efforts.
IH goal is for him to be successful.
IH does not have what they need > no more confidence than last time.
IH wants to avoid a confrontation.
UK Investing visiting on 17th.
Share is the attorney for Ampenergo, Bell for IH, and Chaiken for Rossi. The exhibits referred to are the notes above, plus some emails I have not found shown to the public.
2 Q. So let me repeat the question again: These are
3 notes of a telephone conversation between J.T.
4 Vaughan and — at least Mr. Engleman at AEG — on
5 June 26, 2015; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you remember participating in this call
9 A. Let me just look. I — I’m — we had a lot,
11 (Witness reviews document.) Yes, I see
13 Q. Okay. So on June 3rd you had asked Mr. Vaughan by
14 email if Industrial Heat was satisfied with Penon
15 doing the verification, as we just saw; correct?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 COURT REPORTER: Yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And on June 26, did Mr. Vaughan tell you that
20 Industrial Heat never agreed that Penon could do
21 the audit?
22 A. That’s what it says in the notes.
23 Q. If you turn the page, did Mr. Vaughan tell you
1 that a “real” — underscore — “real” audit must
2 be done?
3 A. I guess he did.
4 Q. And so in June of 2015, did AEG understand that
5 Industrial Heat did not agree to accept any report
6 by Penon?
7 A. Well, that says here — what — we were confused
8 after this was why they didn’t do anything to stop
9 the — what was going on.
10 I mean, this was verbal, but we didn’t
11 see any written or — you know, these were
12 conversations that we had, and we were — I mean,
13 we were confused, because I know J.T. —
14 (Phone sounds.)
15 A. We knew that J.T. did not have confidence in
16 Penon; and that was part of this conversation.
17 Q. So putting aside what was said or not said to Mr.
18 Rossi about that, you understood that Industrial
19 Heat did not agree to Penon.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Now, in the notes — the handwritten
22 notes of the conversation, it goes on to say “IH
23 cannot replicate. IH must –” underscore “– must
1 be able… replicate.”
2 Do you see that?
3 A. On which page?
4 Q. AEG — AE 5.010. The next page.
5 A. (Witness reviews document.) Yes.
6 Q. Uh-huh. So in June of 2015 it was your
7 understanding that Industrial Heat did not believe
8 that it had been able to replicate the — the
9 Rossi effect; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did AEG at that time understand that Industrial
12 Heat did not intend to pay Rossi or AEG if
13 Industrial Heat could not replicate?
14 A. I — that was always assumed.
15 Q. Now, there’s — there’s a notation in these notes
16 that says “What’s behind the wall.”
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Whereabouts?
19 Q. Just one line down — two lines down from what we
20 just read.
21 A. That’s — I guess that would have been J.T. making
23 Q. Uh-huh. And now — and the next line says “If IH
1 feels good about things, they may not push him on
2 the 1-megawatt test.”
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. What does that mean to you?
6 A. That if he’s — if they feel he was having
7 success, that — I don’t — again, I —
8 conversations we always had with Tom and
9 Industrial Heat was, they were always feeling that
10 the 1 megawatt wasn’t necessary either. I think
11 Andrea felt that he wanted to show that he could
12 commercialize this, and that Industrial Heat felt
13 that, you know, if they — if things were going
14 well, then — then maybe that wasn’t necessary to
15 do the big test.
16 Q. And the last line there says “IH does not want to
17 piss him off.”
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Do you see that?
20 What does that mean to you?
21 A. It means that Tom always was trying to be
22 sensitive to Andrea and let him develop his — the
23 project. It was — we always had this expression:
1 It was, like, let — you know, Andrea — I mean,
2 Tom would always, like, give — you know, Let
3 Andrea play in his sandbox. Let him do what he
4 wants to do; be — be himself and the inventor.
5 And Tom didn’t want any conflict going on that
6 would upset Andrea so that Andrea would get
7 distracted from his mission of doing 1 megawatt or
8 for finding the…
9 Q. Why do you think he did that?
10 A. Why did Tom do that? ‘Cause —
11 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
12 A. — I think he just wanted to make all this work.
13 MR. BELL: I’m going to have marked as
14 the exhibit next in order an email dated June 29,
15 2015, stamped AE 345.001.
16 (Exhibit 28, AE 000345.001-002.)
17 A. (Witness reviews document.)
18 Q. Have you had a chance to review that?
19 A. Doing that right now. (Witness reviews document.)
20 Q. Now, on June 29th you wrote an email to Andrea
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in that email you asked him whether Industrial
1 Heat had agreed to using Penon for the
2 certification for the test; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, you knew, based on the exhibits that we just
5 reviewed, that Industrial Heat did not agree to
6 using Penon for the certification.
7 So why did you ask Mr. Rossi that
9 A. ‘Cause we didn’t get an answer from Industrial
10 Heat as to whether there was any agreement or not.
11 This was just a verbal conversation that I didn’t
12 know whether or not Industrial Heat had
13 communicated with Andrea Rossi.
14 Q. Well, those seem — two separate things to me.
15 They — they had clearly — Industrial Heat had
16 clearly communicated it to you —
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. — correct?
19 And you just told me that Mr. Darden
20 went out of his way not to — not to aggravate Mr.
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yeah. Yeah.
23 Q. And you had a concern that they had not —
1 Industrial Heat had not conveyed information to
2 Mr. Rossi —
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. — is that — is that fair?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you trying to influence Mr. Rossi to consider
7 a — a different party to validate Mr. Rossi’s
8 work in Florida?
9 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
10 A. Well, I don’t know if I was trying to convince him
11 to use someone — I — we just wanted to make sure
12 that a third-party evaluation was accepted by both
14 Q. Why not be more direct with Mr. Rossi?
15 MR. SHARE: Objection. Form.
16 A. I’m — I can’t answer that. I’m not sure.
17 Q. Well, in other words, J.T. Vaughan had told you
18 that Industrial Heat doesn’t accept Penon;
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. And you could have said to Mr. Rossi, Hey, I was
22 just talking to J.T. Vaughan on the phone. They
23 don’t accept Penon.
1 A. Well, I assumed that they had that conversation
2 with him.
3 Q. Well, if they had that conversation, why — why
4 would you send an email —
5 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
6 A. I — I just — I suppose I should have had that
7 conversation with Andrea.
8 Q. In the — on the second page of the document in
9 your email, you ask at the — at the last sentence
10 of the first paragraph, “Do you –” Andrea Rossi
11 “– have any certification or letter from the –”
12 quote/unquote “‘– client’ and invoices for sale
13 of energy?”
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why did you ask for that?
17 A. Again, we wanted to make sure that everybody was
18 making — living up to their ends of the
20 Q. What did that have to do with the agreement?
21 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
22 A. That the invoices from the sale of energy would
23 show that they were producing energy.
1 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you to look at Mr. Rossi’s
2 reply to your email.
3 Now, you had asked him a direct question
4 as to whether Industrial Heat agreed with Rossi 5 about Penon doing the certification, as we just
6 saw; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And Mr. Rossi did not answer that — did he — in
9 his email?
10 MR. CHAIKEN: Object to form.
11 A. Yes, he did not.
12 Q. Now, with — what did he say with respect to your
13 request for certifications or letters from the,
14 quote, “client,” close quote and invoices for sale
15 of energy?
16 A. Did not have the documents.
17 (Witness reviews document.) Did not
18 have the documents.
19 Q. Related to the commercial agreement between
20 Industrial Heat and their customer?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. And he goes — he goes on to say he spoke — that
23 he, Rossi, spoke with the director of the factory
1 and the customer, and they are very positive so
2 far; is that right?
3 A. That’s what it says.
4 Q. What did you understand that to mean?
5 A. That everything was going okay.
6 Q. When — on either of your two visits, did you meet
7 with a director of the factory and the customer?
8 A. No.
See July 3, 2014 emails between Cassarino and IH, re Rossi’s request that AEG sign the 2nd Amendment.
See a more extensive exhibit which includes the emails shown above, plus an IH/IPH business plan (which reports the “customer” as Johnson Matthey) and gives many details about IH involvements — and cautions potential investors about high risk. This was dated July, 2014.
April 2014 correspondence between Cassarino and Rossi. (Rossi knows that the Second Amendment has been “cancelled.”)
I suspected that the attorney questioning Cassarino is Chaiken, for Rossi, there are various hints to Rossi legal theories, however, there is also an indication that it is not Chaiken, but presumably Bell, the IH attorney present.
I was originally inspired to write this by reading the Planet Rossi comments on E-Cat World, noticing how many of them seem thoroughly uninformed. Some of that appears on LENR Forum as well.
On ECW, there is complaint about how “confusing” the Rossi v. Darden documents are. People want to be spoon-fed. They come across a word they don’t understand, and conclude that the material is confusing; in fact, they are confused, not the material. Legal language is explicit. I commonly find legal terms that I realize I don’t understand, not being trained as a lawyer, but, instead of falling over, I look them up until I sense that I understand them. I discuss the material with others, including lawyers. It’s work to understand something like Rossi v. Darden.
Any of this material can be explained; I may understand more than most because, involved in business, and having occasion to appear in court (on personal matters or cases involving a close friend), I studied common law and some statutory law years ago. I also have been putting in crazy hours reading and organizing case documents.
There is nothing here that someone of reasonable intelligence, genius not required, cannot understand with patience. What interferes more than anything with understanding is preconception inconsistent with fact, or premature demand for “meaning.” We can see in Rossi v. Darden examples where a fact is asserted by one party, that is clearly a fact, but because it may be thought to “mean something” that a party doesn’t like, they dispute it, thus complicating the case, increasing (greatly!) the issues to be decided by the court and jury.