Michael W Wolf Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 21 hours ago
It is said that a good lawyer could represent either side. What arguments can you give in rossi’s favor. Or are you just an IH hack? If all you can give is pro IH interpretation, then you are not a good lawyer at all. Well, you spend a lot of time here, so….
I’m not a lawyer at all, much less a “good” one. However, I decided to give this a shot.
I often wonder where to begin with trolling comments, they can be so dense with crud. I’ll begin with:
I’ve read some law, and have some understanding of it, but that’s about it. I’ve been studying the case, and when I don’t understand terms I look them up. When cases are cited in a manner that isn’t clear to me, I look up and read the cases. It takes a lot of time. I don’t do this for E-cat world, generally, but it’s what I’ve been doing on lenr-forum. As well, to address questions that come up, I check my memory with sources and cite them; this has two effects: over time, I learn the material well, and … it takes a lot of time. All day, sometimes. It’s how I became familiar with cold fusion, doing this for years.
My goal is not to “favor” some “side.” My goal is to understand what has happened and what is happening, and it starts with direct experience but also with becoming familiar with what is in sources. My goal is, as well, communication, by which I don’t mean telling people stuff. I mean something else that has to do with human presence.
I can write polemic, but most of what I write is very much not polemic, it is exploratory and discursive, not concise like polemic must be.
The question is interesting. “What arguments can I give in Rossi’s favor?” What I write is what I find, it’s not designed for “favor.” However, it could look that way. So I wondered about the question. Arguments based on what? The evidence that exists only? Can I make up evidence?
I drafted a reply here. It sucked. Blah, blah, blah. Why? What was stopping me? This is a question I’ve learned to ask myself, and often I won’t like the answer, which is why it isn’t obvious. The obvious answer: I’m biased. I have formed conclusions from evidence. I can still weigh arguments, but conclusions can and will stop creativity.
Rossi’s attorney will, by training, avoid that. He (or she) will assume, unless it becomes totally clear and unmistakeable, that his client is telling him the truth. He will look for every possibility, and may assert those possibilities in pleadings.
I do still maintain a “Rossi narrative,” that assumes truthfulness; however, his friends acknowledge that Rossi exaggerates, takes a possibility of something, say, and asserts it as already happening. So here is an explanatory narrative for some of the known facts. This is invented. It could be abused, perhaps, one reason I didn’t want to write this. However, as Darden said for his goals, I want to “crush the tests.” I dislike an inconclusive result from Rossi v. Darden, and if there is any possibility of reality to the “Rossi effect,” I want him to be free to show it. Even if it didn’t happen in Doral, or if the Test was legally flawed.
So, now comes my imaginary Rossi, testifying, creating evidence to be presumed true unless controverted, if he says this under oath. (Caution for Rossi: if this narrative is false, testifying to it under oath would be perjury, and could create the possibility of criminal sanctions. I.e., prison. This is not a time for creative interpretation, but for truth, “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”)
When I proposed the Doral test, Howard and I had contacted Johnson-Matthey and had the idea of making products with their platinum materials. We told Industrial Heat of our plans. We formed JM Chemical Products, with a British holding company service as the formal owner, and a British friend of Johnson as the hidden owner, with Johnson managing it in the U.S.
When the Plant was actually set up, we retained James Bass to supervise our engineering. However, the plan fell through, it wasn’t practical, and so we then let Bass go, but we had measurements from Penon’s setup showing the power delivered, this information was given to Johnson, who provided invoice requests to Industrial Heat, and I paid this money to JMP to fulfill the Terms Sheet.
I had no idea that there might be a problem with Penon’s setup; he was the expert who had been selected by us before, and IH did not object to the proposed protocol.
I thought it was obvious that this was a Guaranteed Performance Test, but they didn’t tell me of any objections until December, 2015. They allowed me to do almost a year’s work before that, with me expecting that if the Test were successful, according to Penon’s Report, I would then be paid as agreed. I trusted them and did not realize the legal implications of not getting their formal agreement in writing.
His attorney would then argue that IH behavior, then, should not allow them to claim, later, that this was not a valid test, i.e., estoppel.
His attorney might well claim that Penon is not available to testify because he was sued by Industrial Heat, and feared expense and loss.
I wrote this to be reasonably consistent with the evidence we have. I trust that the truth will come out.
Update, December 31, 2016: We now know that the owner of J.M. Products is a trust, created by Johnson after J.M. Chemical Products (the original corporation that was renamed to J.M. Products after the agreement with Industrial Heat.) So Rossi would not truthfully testify about the “British friend of Johnson”) unless that is a description of the beneficiary of the trust, which seems unlikely. The trust was not a U.K. entity, so Rossi might push Johnson under the bus, since Rossi did not say that about JMC.