Four bit fever

There has been some discussion on LENR Forum of data resolution in the Fabiani spreadsheet. From Jed Rothwell:

LENR Calender wrote:

2) If you look at the T_out data from this file

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

It appears that it wasn’t to the nearest 0.1 deg C. Here we are working with a discrete set of possible temperature values: 103.9, 104.5, 105.1.

P. 7 shows 4 digit precision.

LENR Calender wrote:

So more accurate would be to say the temperature data was reported to the nearest 0.5 or 0.6 deg C.

I have never heard of an electronic thermometer that registers to the nearest 0.5 deg C. It is always some decimal value: 1, 0.1, 0.01 . . . This one clearly registers to 4 digits, although I doubt the last 3 are significant.

It is clear that this was not an “electronic thermometer,” but a temperature sensor that generates a signal, often it is a voltage, that varies with temperature. As an example, the TI LM34 sensor generates 10 mV per degree F. This voltage may be sensed and recorded by computer using an ADC, which will have a certain resolution. We are possibly seeing the resolution of the ADC. The voltage reading will be quantized by the ADC.

Looking at the data on page 7, we can see that the only Tout values are 105.0728, 104.5046, and 103.9364. The first jump is 0.5682. The next jump is 0.5682, the same. This is 1.02276 F; the resolution is close to 1 degree F.

I’m suspecting an 8 bit ADC, with full scale being 256 F. Whatever, the resolution sucks. Maybe someone can find the magic approach that explains the exact decimals. (The device provides a voltage which is digitized with the increment being one bit. The temperature is then calculated using an offset and a ratio. This creates the 4-place decimals.)

The Tin temperatures also show quantization. The increment is the same, 0.5682 C., so the values are 63.4544, 64.0226, 64.5908, 65.1590, 65.7272, 66.2954, 66.8636, 67.4318, 68.0000, 68.5682, 69.1364.

That exact value of 68 C pokes me in the eye…. coincidence, perhaps.

There is no sign of calculation roundoff error there; these numbers are likely multiples of 0.5682 C exactly, plus some offset. The recorded data may have been volts, recorded to a certain precision, and then for the spreadsheet this was multiplied by a constant, so the quantized voltage then shows up as quantized temperature. This was not recorded with high precision.

The pressure is also apparently quantized. Now, this is wild: the pressure is close to 1 bar. Absolute pressure, not gauge. The only values shown are 0.9810 and 1.0028, and the value oscillates between them. So the increment is 0.0218 bar. What gauge was this? Penon had said he was going to use PX3098-100A5V, an Omega gauge. This is a 6.9 bar full-scale absolute pressure gauge. The specified accuracy is +/- 0.25% FS, so it would be +/- about 0.02 bar. Then we have possible digitization error, so total error could be 0.04 bar.

The digitization error was unnecessary, at this level. Besides the fact that the pressure gauge selected was too insensitive if pressure was going to be close to 1 bar, the quantization indicates that low-resolution ADC was used. Who chose the ADC hardware? Fabiani?

Wong assumptions, cabbage conclusions.

First, some basic thermodynamics. Just because I can.

At this point I see confusion as to the motions in limine. “Granted in part and denied in part,” what parts? Color my mind boggled. That her reasoning wasn’t given, that’s not surprising, Altonaga can do that. But that an order is entered, that can’t be understood, that is unspecific, is unexpected.

In any case, I decided to pay more attention to the Wong opinions. This is a study of his Expert Disclosure. It’s cabbage, appalling. Continue reading “Wong assumptions, cabbage conclusions.”

Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017

I’ve been watching Judge Judy videos and then I see much, every day, that is, as it were, screaming for comment, examples of how people behave on Planet Stupid. It’s amazing to watch Judge Judy in action — and the other “court shows,” they are pretty much the same. The plaintiff or defendant are stupid, sometimes both of them. “Stupid” means that they don’t see, or refuse to see, what is in front of them, but only stand for what they ‘believe,” usually a variety of “I’m right” and/or “they are wrong.” On Hot Bench, they face a panel of judges, all experienced lawyers at a minimum, with real courtroom experience. From behavior and comments after the show, the parties have learned nothing. And that is often what the Judge is telling them. (“Shut up and put on your listening ears,” Judge Judy says to a plaintiff who is interrupting, insistently, obviously obsessed, obviously not listening.)

Once in a while a losing party will say that they learned something. It’s relatively rare! That happens even if the legal and social issues are open and shut. “I’m right” is the foundational belief for many people, for sure! It’s axiomatic Truth.

Some people would rather die than be wrong. Or even merely to listen to the opinions of others about it, without interrupting. Basic skills.

Index to sections of this post
JONP old crap and where it leads
Long and useless on LENR Forum
Clueless rolls on floor laughing
But What If? RossiSays…
Surprise! Pot Calls Kettle Black!
And now for something completely different

Continue reading “Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017”

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining

Please. Don’t.

That’s the title of the book by Judge Judy that apparently led to her extremely popular TV “arbitration” show, presented as if it were a small-claims court. As an actual judge, Judy Sheindlin, was known as outspoken, but on the TV series, she takes this to extremes. She’s smart, and she’s quick, fully “self-expressed.”

A comment by Sam, here, pointed to Youtube of her work, which I watched.

I think we might get somewhere if they let this
Judge handle Rossi VS Darden.

I dive into the world of Judge Judy, new to me. Continue reading “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

She’s underpaid or understaffed

The judge. Faced with three motions to dismiss, and not having the time to review all the claimed “undisputed facts,” she punted.

It took me months of study on this case to come to the point where I might be able to see through the fog. I never finished the study pages, though I may still work on them for historical value, but at this point it is moot. An appeal of a dismissed MSJ is not likely, and that it might even be possible is controversial.

The judge wrote,

The parties’ voluminous, competing briefing and submissions plainly show the record is brimming over with disputed issues of material fact. Indeed, the Court is hard-pressed to locate any material facts on which the parties agree. Disputed factual issues are for the jury to determine.

In reviewing the MSJs, Oppositions, and Replies, what I found, way too commonly, was fact, clear from the record, that was nevertheless “disputed,” ending up as a matter to be adjudicated, when the asserted fact in the Motion was not at all in dispute, but rather possible implications.

Continue reading “She’s underpaid or understaffed”

Lying liars redux

I’m compiling the arguments and creating a study pages for the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and came across this gem:

61. As early as October 2013, Defendants did not have any intention of making their requisite $89 million payment to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Composite Ex. 9 at 117-121.

That is the Darden deposition. It struck me as odd, and so even though I hadn’t arrived to that point in the analysis (I need to do this systematically or it will take far too long), I looked it up. Rossi has contradicted his own basic argument about estoppel on the Guaranteed Performance Test, by citing this deposition this way.
Continue reading “Lying liars redux”

Amped up on Ampenergo

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.

On LENR Forum, Argon wrote:

Ahlfors wrote:

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.


page 1
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
Lithium?


page 2
IH (877) 877-868-6863 17 October 2014
(890) 948-7873#
Lithium
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.


page 3
IH 31 October 2014
Securing initial funding
$50 million > maybe tranched
Netherlands Co. > parent Co.
IH, LLC Shareholder agreement for new entity.
Mcubre

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.


page 4
31 Oct. 2014
[drawing]
magnetic field
Strength of magnetic field
magnetic field of electricity flowing in wire
coils arand iron core T3

[sic], around

1000 x stronger than coils only


page 5
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


page 6
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.


page 7
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

Ahlfors, on LENR Forum, pointed to a possible meaning for this. James Truchard, National Instruments. Maybe.


page 8
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 


page 9
IH/JT 26 June 2015
2 more positions in LNER
UK deal closed
Smart [?] / Shawn Spears [?]
Remote R&D
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


page 10
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.


page 11
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.


We also have the depositions. From the deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino (and some from another copy including page 214 ):
p. 208:

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
8 specifically?
9 A. Let me just look. I — I’m — we had a lot,
10 but…
11 (Witness reviews document.) Yes, I see
12 that.
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
22 comment.
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
8 question?
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
13 parties.
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;
19 correct?
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
19 agreement.
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.

At last! The opportunity you’ve been waiting for!

I.e., to send Infusion Institute funding to keep this work going. I started a GoFundMe campaign:

Cold fusion journalism

I intend to go to Miami for the trial in Rossi v. Darden — if it happens, which is seeming likely, though the scope of the trial remains unclear at this point. Getting there is relatively cheap (I’ll probably take the bus), but a hotel would be expensive, I expect, unless I share a room — which is how I managed to afford ICCF-18.

This blog isn’t expensive, though it is beginning to push resource limits and I may need to start paying more for hosting.

Misc Mash

Pacermonitor.com appears to be dysfunctional. While the Rossi v. Darden docket page claims to have been updated, it hasn’t. It ends at this point with DE 281 (May 3), while Eric Walker and I have documents up to 289 (May 6). Pacermonitor ordinarily updates at midnight, but it looks like their PACER login might be failing, and their automated access may treat a login failure as if there were no new documents.

(I contacted pacermonitor and they fixed the problem. At least for now!)

LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.

The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.

The posts are typically images, very little text if any. The images are copies of documents with supposed Great Significance, I’d guess. All posts but appear to have been made within a three-hour period. In time order, latest first, as of this writing:

 Document about a calorimetric device. Being used for Quark-X? No clue, but that’s what I’d guess. It uses thermocouples.

Photos allegedly JT Vaughn in Zürich. JT Vaughn went to Zurich. Big whoop?

Replied to the thread Rossi vs. Darden developments – Part 2.

Intern 2

Position notice for ‘startup technology company,” Chemistry lab manager. Involves hydrogen storage materials. However, the listing then is about a “Graduate Research Assistant,” Solid State Materials, North Carolina State University, Professor Paul Maggard’s lab. This is the lab. Connection with Rossi v. Darden practically invisible. However, the lab is in Raleigh, at North Carolina State University there. Maggard has published in the field of solar electric energy conversion, which would then make connections with the people behind Industrial Heat quite plausible. However, I found no evidence so far. People who spend more time and are more diligent may find something.

This appears to be a LinkedIn page for someone working at HMRI, since August 2016. This led me to the profile for Nicholas A. Renck, who worked at HMRI R&D, Inc., from December, 2015, to June, 2016.

Responsible for investigation of chemistry related aspects in development of a proprietary energy source as well as the preparation of a chemistry lab and related processes at a small start-up.

Successfully calibrated the spectral profiles of metals of interest for a SEM/EDS system without training from Brüker.

The imaged information is from this page: Josh Dickerson. The only information of interest (for any possible relationship to RvD) is the name of the employer: HMRI, Inc. The work was “characterization of materials.”

From these sources, HMRI, Inc. is involved with a “proprietary energy source.” That’s about it.

V = 2,33kV
P = 244,9W
I = 0,105A
d = 0,015m
λ = 0,53nm

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05249]

 The arXiv paper is the paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström and Andrea Rossi. The significance to Rossi v. Darden is? It is common on Planet Rossi to think that anything that might be successful by Rossi would be killer evidence in the trial, which is a gross delusion. Not that Quark-X is successful. We have no reliable information about it.
Ahlfors 
Jack Finney / Don Siegel
The image was here, for the thread Symposium Francophone RNBE-2016
The significance of “Jack Finney / Don Siegel” is obscure. Unless this is about body snatchers and nuclear war.
Ahlfors 
Microgrids
Three documents are shown:
a listing of the noncompetition agreement between IH and Murray (taken from joint stipulation supplement Rossi exhibits line 191) (I have not yet cross referenced these, I do not know if we have a copy of that document).
a list of LLCs that Joseph A. Murray is registered agent for. Ahlfors missed one.
A microgrid patent. Darden has been known to have an interest in microgrids. The filing is shown here. 
This is all meaningless with respect to Rossi v. Darden. People in business do business. People who live in basements or under bridges think this is sinister.
Ahlfors 
Twin-set
Two images: a well-known image of an early Rossi reactor, apparently in his dining room, and an image of the JMP black box
There is a mental state or syndrome where the mind makes connections where normal people would see nothing related. Such people often think that if they simply show the “evidences,” others will immediately recognize the connections — or they are blind, or, worse, hostile conspirators.

Ahlfors 

Sapphire crucibles for work at the temperatures up to 2000°C, chemically resistant. Presumably could be used for Quark-X. 

Ahlfors 

Overseas:
Another Linked-In profile image with no member information. I could not find the original profile. If this is a real profile, job with HMRI R&D in Cary, NC, terminated because “proprietary process being moved overseas.”
This may be inconsistent with other profiles already seen. People sometimes make false statements (knowingly or unknowingly) in LinkedIn profiles. Profiles may easily be out-of-date, as well.

Ahlfors

 This is the official U.K. corporate information, for IHHI, the parent company of Industrial Heat. This is very well-known. The point is?
Ahlfors 
SEC:
Two images: line 111 of the Rossi exhibits in the joint pretrial stipulation, referring to an SEC document, a little of which is shown in the next image. This is quite old news, it was discussed extensively last year. It’s meaningless. A $2.2 billion, very active, corporation, when regulations change, can make mistakes. Cherokee made an accounting error. The SEC dinged them. Cherokee made a settlement offer, which the SEC accepted, November 15, 2015. Should klaxons be sounding? As agreed, they paid a civil penalty of $100,000. That is about 0.0005% of the assets under management. That would be like me paying a nickel.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden. Apparently, though, Rossi asked Dewey Weaver a question about it, this being listed in the joint stipulation as Exhibit 8 in the Weaver deposition. That page is not included in the Rossi submission of this deposition. If this has any meaning, it is certainly obscure.
Ahlfors
….
This is three images. The first is the known photo of Rossi with a wig in front of a whiteboard. The second is what could be a blurry photo of Rossi’s sleeve and a bottle of water. The third is a clear photo of the same brand of bottled water, Zephyrhills.
The point is obvious: Rossi drinks water, proving he is not a demon.
Of course, we don’t actually see him drinking. Inquiring minds want to know.
Ahlfors

This is a Google cache of a staff page for Fabio Fabiani at Upsalla University. Fabiani is called a “researcher,” and this is in the Department of Chemistry. There is no evidence that this is the same Fabio Fabiani as was Rossi’s helper, though it would be somewhat remarkable as a coincidence if he is not. Rossi has friends at Upsalla. 

The Google cache comments are in Italian, and the page was captured 20 March, 2017. The cache copy calls him a “visiting researcher.” 

This has nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden Developments.

This user is wasting the time of many readers. There was a complaint.

Ahlfors,

Personally, I’d like to see you make some coherent points or arguments rather than just spamming the forum with disconnected screenshots and pictures.

Ignored.

I notice the people who upvote things like this….

IH Fanboy wrote:

Looks like Ahlfors has been digging. You might recall that AlainCo discovered that JT Vaughn might be behind HRMI R&D, Inc.

Antonio LaGatta and John T Vaughn have incorporated HMRI R&D Inc in North Carolina

This is where I came in. Looking at this thread brought it all back. The breathless gossip, basically rumor. Dead sources. But, wait, Vessela Nikolova! never mind!

It was there that David Nygren valued IHHI at over $1 billion, by multiplying 23 million shares by $45. Nobody corrected Nygren’s error until I posted about three months later. The ordinary stock is penny stock, worth $0.01 per share par value. $45 was the approximate price per share of preferred stock, issued to the two Woodford trusts. The total value of that preferred stock was $50 million, quite precisely.

Since I started writing this, there are a few more posts:

Ahlfors wrote:

[two images: line 210 of the Rossi evidences re “Proprietary Information Agreement – PIA No. 2011-2011 between The Boeing Company and Leonardo Corporation”, dated 4/13/2011 (before the IH/Rossi agreement, but this has IH Bates document numbers? Perhaps Boeing gave these documents to IH?), and then an excerpt of a handwritten note provided by Ampenergo, saying “Device sent to Boeing, Rossi does not know.” Which we already knew. Rossi was upset about this, as I recall, expressing it on JONP. How could anyone possibly test the device without authentic Rossi Grease?

(Well, if the IP has been transferred, they could! If not, then, of course, failure would be expected. The magic incantations would be missing.)

Ahlfors wrote:

Friends and IP protection …

Quote: “AR is a convicted fraudster”

At least now Ahlfors gives URLs as sources, not just screenshots. Andrea Rossi was convicted, and served time in prison; what later happened is unclear to me and I’ve never seen a thorough examination of it. Mats Lewan is unclear, etc. This thread is supposedly about Rossi v. Darden developments, but Darden doesn’t make that “convicted fraudster” claim and it is irrelevant. What is this stuff doing here?

snap4: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitst…9480/Pinho.pdf?sequence=1

60 page paper about RU-486. No page number or clue of relevance. The image, however, shows a page, but the page number is obscured. So, searching for a name visible in the image, I find that it is page 37. Unfortunately, I cannot directly link to that because of how this paper is hosted, and it’s not worth uploading the whole thing here.

This is about Joseph Pike. See our page examining this and connecting it with present concerns.

snap 5: https://beta.companieshouse.go…ent?format=pdf&download=0

68 page Articles of Association of IHHI. No page number or clue of relevance. However, the image shows a list of investors, and JPIH Holdings LLC is an investor in IHHI.

snap6: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inqui…cumentNumber=M14000008590

And this shows the Florida registration of JPIH Holdings LLC as a foreign corporation, from Delaware. The Delaware incorporation was in May, 2013, about the time IH was raising their initial cash, that allowed them to make the $10 million payment, and to begin working seriously with LENR.

The purpose here is to smear Pike and thus IH, by claiming that if Rossi might have been a criminal, so was Pike. But Pike’s offense was thirty years ago, was relatively minor, apparently, and he is not a principal in IH, not an officer, and, for the most part, an investor. His involvement with the RU-486 affair was shady, but it appears to have been fully resolved, nobody was left screaming “Fraud!”

Ahlfors’ agenda is now clear. Slimy.


Update

Ahlfors left in a huff after Allan pointed out he’d been warned and one post was deleted. (As is SOP with him, — and some other newcomers — he doesn’t link to what he is responding to.) Then, encouraged by some support, he put up a new mish-mosh:

Ahlfors wrote:

@andrea.s

Link to profile but not the post. It was probably this. The lack of understanding or caring about general intelligibility is quite noticeable here.

Complex systems must be shattered a bit to collect REAL data on corresponding phase spaces.

This is extremely unlikely to be Andrea Rossi. It is quite possible someone has recognized Ahlfors. So then he puts up three images, again with no sources. Hmmphh. I wrote one of them, and there is no credit. Maybe I should create a license page. It’s rude to quote people without credit. It also can be a violation of copyright law, that depends on details.

The first is from Dewey Weaver. There are links in it, but as an image, they cannot be followed, and certainly the sources can be found, but it’s tedious. Given that he could have added links in a few seconds, again, this shows his lack of care for other people, characteristic of the probably-involved developmental disorder. He is not stupid and could learn if he recognized what is missing.

The source is the member activity display for Dewey, but that may change. So the original posts are at here (May 9, 2017), and here (March 27, 2017). Ahlfors habit of posting edited screenshots conceals context, and this then makes it easier to promote some interpretation of the “data.” It’s data, all right, but cherry-picked and filtered for some appearance or other.

The second image is some text that might be an LF private message, but it could also be from many other sources. It says “8 hours ago,” then the message is:

Hej Ahlfors. Jag undrar om du skulle vilja ta kontakt direkt med mig på [blacked out].

This, then, appears to be a message to Ahlfors — at the LF account — from someone who speaks Swedish, likely, and expects if from him, maybe. It gives no clue as to Ahlfors actual identity or nationalilty or language. There is another indication, from a Google cache display, that his preferred language is Italian. Of course, perhaps Ahlfors got that image from someone like that. None of this, in isolation, is strong evidence.

And then there is a shot from here. This page, in fact, above, near the top.

LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.

The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.

What is the connection between the three images? What is the point, or is this pointless? My guess. Dewey claims Ahlfors is ele. That is a kind of critique. Ahlfors quotes someone addressing him, though this could merely be a copy of an LF PM, which would, of course, use his LF username. He might imagine that this somehow establishes his independence from ele, maybe that it’s in Swedish is imagined to amplify that. And then I have noticed Ahfors (actually, from timing, before Dewey posted that comment, his first in a long time). Aha!

Isn’t it obvious?!?!

This is how Sifferkoll thought and worked. Whatever connection could be found was taken as proof of … of … what? Large companies sometimes hire the largest law firm in the U.S. Therefore they are all controlled by a single interest! (If Cherokee were not a defendant, would IH have hired Jones Day? Maybe. They have those habits.)


Meanwhile, the flood of flabber continues. In this case, it might seem to be from the “other side.” or from the side of Haven’t a Clue. From my point of view, there are no sides and one can be terminally obtuse in favor of any position.

joshg wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:

I don’t think there’s enough information to be forced into a negative interpretation yet. One possibility: Perlman Bajandas are just cleaning up loose ends after Annesser left, and “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”.

Well somebody at LENR-forum apparently doesn’t agree with you. Here is the (spam) e-mail I received:

Hello {username},

today new court documents were released, where especially document 292 “Motion to withdraw” seems to indicate significant negative developments in Rossi’s camp.

In document 292 most of Rossi’s lawyers ask the court for permission to “withdraw from this case and from further representation of Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi”.

I got the same email. Including “{username}”. There was a little more:

For more information see the forum discussion thread:

Rossi vs. Darden developments

Your LENR Forum Team

joshg goes on:

Spamming a premature, tendentious, and likely inaccurate interpretation of this Motion just confirms that LENR-forum is biased against Rossi in favor of IH. There have been plenty of motions that could be viewed as a setback for IH, yet I was never spammed about that.

And yes, it is spam, since LENR-forum does not provide users with a way to opt-out of receiving such unsolicited notifications.

LENR-Forum is run by amateurs without wide experience in such activity. I think of the interpretation as merely clueless. LF process is quite unclear. My suspicion is that while this is signed “Your LENR Forum Team,” it is really a message from a single moderator or administrator, struck by his own imagination that the Motion to Withdraw is some sort of major “sign.”

First of all, this was obviously happening. The first sign I saw was Bernstein appearing with Annesser at a hearing, April 21. I wrote about it here. Bernstein was an associate at Silver Law Group. Annesser had moved to PBY&A, Rossi gained all those attorneys (August 16, 2016), and then Annesser, for Rossi, requested Silver Law Group be relieved (September 21). I think Ms. Silver died in October.

April 27, Annesser and Chaiken issue a notice of new address. They have clearly formed a new firm, Annesser and Chaiken. There was no mention of PBY&A in that notice, and that firm’s lawyers were not on the service list.

May 9, Bernstein appeared for Rossi, and later that day, Turner and Evans, of PBY&A, requested to be relieved. There are Forum moderators who are legally naive, and who interpreted the motion to allow withdrawal as having some accusatory edge. That is extremely unlikely. The move itself may raise eyebrows, but attorneys would never accuse former associated attorneys of misbehavior during an action, absent extremely unusual situations. I think the mod was confused by this:

2. Pursuant to Rule 4-1.16(b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, grounds exist for this Court to allow Undersigned Counsel’s withdraw from representing Plaintiffs.

“Grounds exist.” So a reader goes to Rule 4-1.16(b) and finds this:

(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.

Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:

(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;

(2) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;

(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;

(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;

(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or

(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

To understand this, one must notice that the list of causes comes after a general permission to withdraw if it “can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:” — and then the list follows. The additional causes as listed would never be announced like this, because it could harm the client. If it were necessary to assert them, this would be done privately with the Judge.

Rather, Turner and Evans then give cause:

3. Lead counsel for the Plaintiffs have resigned from the office for Undersigned Counsel and Plaintiffs have moved with them.
4. Plaintiffs’ counsel is John Annesser, Esq., Annesser & Chaiken, PLLC, located at 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 625, Coral Gables, Florida 33134.

§ 3 gives cause (which might satisfy Rule 4-1.16(a), that they must withdraw if discharged). § 4 assures the Court that Rossi will continue to have representation.

While this is food for flabber, DE 292 was one of the least significant documents to come out recently.

What this reveals is that LF allows moderators to email all members. I’m a bit uncomfortable calling this spam, but this is one example of unprofessional conduct — not surprising for a group of amateurs. Moderators are not given special privileges to give them special access to eyeballs, except with the performance of duties. The importance of this document was a moderator opinion, and it was offensive to joshg, never mind that he lives mostly on Planet Rossi. There are other examples. On the home page for the Forum, we have a banner:

LENR Forum
The Independent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Community

Is LENR forum a community project? It displays advertising. Who decides to do that? There is a LENR community, but the vast majority of those involved with LENR do not read or participate in LENR Forum. The Forum users are a kind of community, but the Staff may include or exclude people without showing any cause, and Staff discussions are private, not disclosed, though occasionally they are mentioned.

And then at the bottom of the screen, there is a pair of buttons. [What is LENR?] and [Forum]. The “What is LENR” button goes to an article. When Barty upgraded the site in January, my guess is he decided the site needed an introductory article, so he wrote it, and featured it. Without going into details, it is a poor article, he simply isn’t well grounded in the relevant subjects. I suspect that Barty is also the one who can “spam” the members. But it might be any admin or any moderator.

That “spam” wasn’t signed, but was represented as coming from all staff.

Moderation decisions on LF are ad hoc. It is not clear that there are any restraining rules. There do not appear to be logs showing deletions or other moderator actions. (That’s also a problem with WordPress). If it’s like WordPress, there are deletions that merely hide, and there are deletions that erase the material so it is not recoverable unless there is some off-site backup. (Actually, I just checked. I could install WP Security Audit Log. What this would do is to allow monitoring administrative activity. The WMF wikis would be practically impossible without that.

Update2

All but the latest of Ahlfors’ posts have been deleted on LF. See his profile. It shows 12 posts, but only 3 remain. He has 15 likes, but only 5 show.

One user suggested an Ahlfors thread, so he could continue to compile his “evidence.” (evidence of what? Stuff happens?). Ahlfors is clearly supporting Planet Rossi, perhaps trolling (I called him a troll above, and a troll may want to create exactly what LF admin then cooperated with), but channeling this so that it does not derail more constructive conversations would be what skilled moderation would do. Skilled moderation was offered to LF, it was rejected (with no reasons given, a blank wall was presented, with the suggesting staff member somewhat in despair). It only takes one skilled moderator and some sane discussion process to infect the whole staff with sanity. And that is exactly why someone might want to stop it. The fact that a moderator who abused the privilege could be immediately suspended by any admin with rights assignment privileges is ignored. People will protest!

Yes, they will. And if everything runs on preventing squeaky wheels, the best way to prevent them is to stop moving.

Ahlfors is not banned, but deleting the content of an author is stronger — more offensive — than a ban. Moving it to the Playground, say, was the older, less dysfunctional response. There is no supervisory process visible for LF. I suspect the “rule” that (Alan?) had in mind was flooding, but response to that should be totally predictable and should cause no harm. Alan, however, follows the Absolute Truth principle. If Alan thinks it, it is Absolute Truth and everything else is stupid or vicious. Full stop.

Pike history

From The Story of RU-486 in the United States (2001 third year paper)


By way of background to this controversy, the Population Council had licensed another nonprofit organization, Advances in Health Technology, see supra note 91, to manufacture and distribute RU-486 in the United States.178 Advances in Health Technology subsequently sub-licensed the manufacturing and distribution rights to NeoGen Industries, a corporation controlled by a lawyer and businessman named Joseph Pike. Pike had earlier worked with the Population Council on the development of an intrauterine contraceptive device.179 In an effort to raise money from investors to finance the RU-486 project, Pike established a series of limited partnerships and some other companies that were incorporated in the Cayman Islands.180 One investor, the Giant Group of Beverly Hills, paid $6 million to Pike for a 26% interest in Pike’s companies  and allegedly secured as part of the agreement a restrictive covenant that barred Pike from selling a significant portion of his entities to other prospective investors.181 When Pike allegedly violated this agreement by attempting to sell a substantial share of his entities to various other purchasers, the Giant Group filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing Pike of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and unfair business practices.182 In keeping with RU-486’s fascinating and controversial odyssey was the lawsuit’s further contention that Mr. Pike was a disbarred lawyer who had been convicted of forgery in North Carolina and, as a result, received a suspended two-year sentence and 18 months probation.183

Information about Pike’s alleged notorious dealings and shady past soon ignited a flurry of lawsuits against him that hindered RU-486’s entry into the U.S. consumer market. KCC Delaware, one of the investors in Pike’s entities, sued Pike and accused him of concealing his past and mishandling the investment deal.184

In a separate suit filed on November 4, 1996 in New York State Supreme Court, the Population Council and Advances in Health Technology charged Pike with fraud.185 The lawsuit alleged that Pike had not properly accounted for the money that was invested in his entities and had ciphoned [sic] off money into some dubious off-shore entities.186 While the Population Council and Advances in Health Technology did not seek to rescind the sublicenses Pike had issued to Danco Laboratories and other companies to manufacture and distribute the drug, they did seek to wrest control of the company from him by having his interest in the entities transferred to a court-appointed receiver.187 The Population Council strongly believed that Pike’s past legal troubles and his efforts to conceal them disqualified him from serving as a fiduciary and the lead business entrepreneur in the RU-486 enterprise – a politically sensitive and controversial venture that needed a person of irrefutable integrity at its helm.

After months of legal jostling, the stalemate finally came to an end on February 12, 1997 when the Population Council announced that it had settled the lawsuit surrounding control of RU-486 and had arranged for a new privately held company, Advances for Choice, to handle the drug.188 Under the settlement, Pike agreed to sell most of his equity interest in the RU-486 enterprise, keeping only a modest passive investment, and to relinquish any role in the management of the newly formed company.189 Jack Van Hulst, a Dutch attorney and Population Council consultant, became the president and chief executive of Advances for Choice and forecasted that the drug would be available to doctors and clinics by December 1997.190


178 See Editorial, The Troubles of RU-486, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 1996, at A32.
179 See Tamar Lewin, Abortion Pill’s Legal Woe May Be Nearing an End, N.Y. Times, Jan. 25, 1997, at A7.
180 See Gina Kolata, Business Dispute May Delay Introduction of Abortion Pill, N.Y. Times, Nov. 1, 1996, at A20. The Cayman Islands entities were not required to disclose the names of officers and partners. See id.
181 See id.
182 See id.
183 See id.
184 See Sharon Bernstein, Persistence Brought Abortion Pill to U.S.: Two Feminist Activists Culled Nonprofit Organizations and Dedicated Individuals To Do The Work That No Pharmaceutical Company Was Willing to Tackle, L.A Times, Nov. 5, 2000, at A1.
185 See Tamar Lewin, Dispute May Delay Abortion in the U.S., N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 1996, at A16
186 See id.
187 See Caryle Murphy & Kathleen Day, Abortion Pill’s U.S. Debut Snagged by Business Dispute: Sponsor Seeks to Oust Associate For Not Disclosing Disbarment, Wash. Post., Jan. 12, 1997, at A1.
188 See Tamar Lewin, Legal Bout Over Abortion Pill Ends: Group Will Apply For FDA Approval, L.A. Daily News, Feb. 13, 1997, at N19. The Population Council had previously intended to distribute RU-486 through Advances for Health Technology, which was subsumed into the new company. See FDC Reports, Mifepristone (RU-486) Distribution Given to a New Company Headed by Former Generic Exec Van Hulst, The Pink Sheet, Feb. 17, 1997.
189 American Political Network, Spotlight Story, Story RU-486: Suit Settled; Sales May Begin in ’97, 7 Abortion Rep. No. 137, Feb. 13, 1997, available in WL APN-AB File.
190 See Tamar Lewin, Legal Hurdle Cleared in Sale of French Abortion Pill in U.S., N.Y. Times, Feb. 13, 1997, at A28


Discussion

The upshot of this (as it came to be of interest here) is that there is a Joseph Pike who was convicted of forgery. “In keeping with RU-486’s fascinating and controversial odyssey was the lawsuit’s further contention that Mr. Pike was a disbarred lawyer who had been convicted of forgery in North Carolina and, as a result, received a suspended two-year sentence and 18 months probation.”

Pike was sued with regard to the RU-486 affair, but that was settled, apparently satisfactorily. The issue about disbarment was raised by the plaintiff in that lawsuit. The source is the New York Times article by Gina Kolata, November 1, 1996, who has:

The lawsuit contended that Mr. Pike had misrepresented himself to the Giant Group. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Pike is a disbarred lawyer who was convicted of forgery in May in North Carolina and is on probation after receiving a two-year suspended prison sentence.

Mr. Christensen’s public relations firm provided copies of Mr. Pike’s affidavit before the North Carolina State Bar, which took away his license to practice law in 1993, and legal documents describing his suspended sentence for forgery.

This is weak confirmation. However, the disbarment action is available, July 9, 1993, and it includes an affidavit signed by Joseph Daniel Pike, acknowledging the actions that led to his disbarment.

Another NY Times article, by Tamar Lewin, November 6, 1996, has a little more detail:

Margaret Catley-Carlson, the president of the Population Council, said her group told Mr. Pike in late July to divest, after learning that he had been disbarred for forgery in a 1985 North Carolina real estate deal and had been given a suspended two-year sentence. Ms. Catley-Carlson said she had long known Mr. Pike as a backer of products shunned by pharmaceutical companies, like the Copper-T intrauterine device.

So the alleged fraud was over thirty years ago as this is written. A decade later, he was given a suspended sentence, which is likely an indication that the offense was not major, but it would still be, likely, a felony, and would surely lead to disbarment for a lawyer. He did not serve time in prison. In the RU-486 affair, while he was accused of fraud there, it appears that it was all settled, there were no criminal charges.

Next issue: the name is common. Is this the Joseph Pike who is a principal of JPIH Holdings, which holds significant investment in IH Holdings International? (Perhaps 6 million shares, par value about $60,000.)

The North Carolina J. Daniel Pike was obviously a businessman dealing with major funding. That could be significant. He signed the articles of association of IHHI, (see pdf page 6). The signature is close enough to that of the North Carolina J. Daniel Pike that I conclude this is the same person.

On the face, JPIH Holdings was formed to be Joseph Pike IH Holdings. JPIH Holdings LLC (Florida) has Pike as manager and registered agent, with a Florida address. JPIH Holdings likely represents his personal investment. It is a Delaware corporation, formed 5/24/2013. From the date, Pike was an early investor in Industrial Heat.

And this is meaningless. Pike’s history could be of concern to someone placing great reliance on him, and the RU-486 affair was largely about his being heavily trusted but not having disclosed his (then recent) past. As an investor, that would not be relevant.

More meshu and flabber on LF and then something completely different

Gaseous emissions continue on LF, as usual, but then comes something completely different, an informative description, generally neutral. I’ll add some links and then blog comments, reserving the right to be crazy-as-hell (meshu) myself. After all, posts here are a blog (translate: fun!) and may be quite opinionated. Overall, CFC is intended to be neutral, but neutral-by-inclusion (like Wikiversity) not neutral-by-exclusion (like Wikipedia).

sigmoidal wrote: (an excellent post covering recent documents filed) Continue reading “More meshu and flabber on LF and then something completely different”

Planet Rossi Flabbergas

When I can’t make up new words any more, shovel dirt in my face. This one is easy, though, a rather obvious back-formation.

The occasion is the reaction on LENR Forum to new filings related to the Motions in Limine. For those who need a program, these are motions seeking to exclude evidence as improper,perhaps likely to emotionally (and irrelevantly or deceptively) bias a jury, or as spoliated, i.e., damaged through deliberate action or carelessness when care was due.

I’ll start with a post just before the docs hit the fan, IH Fanboy wrote:

@Shane,
Yeah, I agree that JMP/Rossi are for most purposes (although not technically) one and the same.

What is interesting to me is sig mentioned a lease agreement, and that he had seen it. That is new information, at least to me. And how did he gain access to it? Inquiring minds want to know, and all that.

IHFB is more or less unique on Planet Rossi in that he does acknowledge the “customer fraud.” In a new document that IHFB has not seen yet, evidence is emphasized that countersinks the screws. (None of it is particularly new, we just see a little more of the JM/JMC/JMP negotiation) that makes the “Johnson Matthey” fraud totally clear, and Rossi’s later claims about it as probable perjury. IH does not here assert all the evidence that has been shown. For example, Bass saying to Rossi that he’s not clear how to answer questions about Johnson Matthey. Where did he get the idea that Johnson Matthey was involved? He clearly has the idea that the Doral operation is a Johnson Matthey operation.

However, I don’t think IHFB is familiar with the case documents. Frankly, that’s quite understandable. I’m spending many hours a week sorting and organizing document access, and I don’t consider myself thoroughly familiar, merely more than the average bear. Continue reading “Planet Rossi Flabbergas”

Independent testing <> IH must pay

On LENR Forum, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Wyttenbach wrote:

@AN: You just forget, that all useful reactors were built by IH…

Rossi claimed that he built some. He claimed they worked. I.H. tested the ones he made and the ones they made. None of them worked. But, anyway, if Rossi has one that works, he can have it tested independently. If it works, I.H. will pay up. Or, if they don’t pay up, he can easily win the lawsuit by citing the independent replication. Either way it is in his interests to have the claim confirmed independently.

As is common, Wyttenbach “reminds” us of useless and possibly misleading information. I have myself stated that IH made the reactors used at Doral, but I do not recall where that information came from, it may simply be something based on RossiSays that got picked up and treated as true. There were large reactor assemblies that might be “Big Frankies” that were transported from Italy to North Carolina. Perhaps someone will point to, like, actual evidence?

However, what Jed wrote simply is not so. Evidence of independent testing, if it existed, would still be irrelevant to Rossi’s basic $89 million claim against IH. That is based on nonpayment claimed to be a breach of contract, and to that claim requires that the contract require the payment, whereas there is ample evidence that the opportunity for a GPT was missed, through deliberate refusal to approve of the Second Amendment, on the part of Ampenergo (as well as other problems). That some Rossi device, somewhere else, “worked,” perhaps, even, a truly reliable test, simply doesn’t trigger that payment unless the Agreement conditions were met, and they clearly were not.

What is being confused here is an IH statement of intention to pay if Rossi satisfies them — voluntarily –, with an idea that they must pay.

In the counterclaim, which is distinct and different, whether or not Rossi devices work could be relevant, and evidence of independent testing could be introduced, in defense of Rossi. The original Rossi claim, though, is dead in the water — and, my opinion, very likely to be thoroughly burnt toast shortly, the evidence and facts sufficient to dismiss it being clear, and not at all vague or requiring jury assessment.

What remains and what may possibly require jury review are the counterclaims, against Rossi, and including the claims against Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani. Maybe. I have not completed my review of the MSJs.

However, it does appear that some Rossi claims, signed under penalty of perjury, have been egregiously false; so a risk for him has arisen of criminal prosecution. The “Johnson Matthey” issue is the clearest. He led IH to believe that JM was the real customer behind JMC/JMP, there can be no reasonable doubt of this from Rossi’s emails, plus, of course, there is the testimony of Darden and Vaughn, plus the emails of Johnson and Bass, and then he set up conditions to discourage IH from checking through direct communication with JM. All this makes no sense unless Rossi originally brought up JM — and wanted IH to continue their (mis)understanding.

Meanwhile, Annesser and Chaiken apparently left PBY&A and have set up their own firm, Annesser and Chaiken, PLLC. The email address provided is on a new domain, registered April 17, 2017. It’s parked at godaddy. Annesser and Chaiken are no longer listed on the PBY&A professionals page, as they were on the latest Internet Archive page showing them.

I had noticed an oddity: in the Discover hearing April 20, there was an appearance by Robert Bernstein, who is shown as a Silver Law Group attorney, and who is not listed as counsel for Rossi. Ruth Silver, the principal at SLG, has withdrawn from the case, so what was Bernstein doing there? I suspected Annesser needed some help, asked Bernstein to appear, but without Bernstein making a formal appearance in the case, as counsel for a party, (which I haven’t seen), I’m not at all sure about how that works. (Annesser is still listed as part of the SLG team. But his Linked-in profile shows this association as having ended in 2016. — and it still shows him at PBY&A. The SLG web site is obsolete.)

Actually, I just looked at Bernstein’s Linked-in page. He has been quicker to update. He is now listing himself as an associate attorney with Annesser and Chaiken PLLC. That is why he appeared at that hearing (which was after ACLaw was created as an email domain.)

So Rossi’s lawsuit has taken half the attorneys away from Silver Law Group (the least experienced ones, to be sure). Aw, Ruth, if you read this, to steal a phrase from Lenny Bruce, you betta off. 


Some more comments on LF discussion:

IH Fanboy (with his misleading and perhaps trolling username) repeats himself, over and over, on certain points. Generally, he does not actually cite evidence, but sometimes we can recognize the source. It’s typically misleading.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Nigel Appleton wrote:

Assuming this fascinating business comes to trial, I do hope that counsel for IH ensure that the idea that Rossi could could at any time have openly demonstrated a working eCat . . .

I’m going to break the rest of the IHFB comment into numbered sections.

[1] He did.

Not. NA means a an independently verifiable test, not merely some “demonstration” with Rossi in full control. Planet Rossi generally justifies Rossi secrecy based on his need to protect his IP from being stolen, but it is quite possible to do a black box test. It does require certain additional precautions, that’s all. (Such as running for substantially longer to rule out energy storage.)

[2.] Not only that, IH (i.e., specifically Dameron) built reactors themselves.

They did. They claim that they didn’t “work.” This must be understood, see below.

[3.] Darden (yes, the VC guy) apparently fueled them himself.

He did, and that makes complete sense.

[4.] They produced COPs upwards of 9.

Here IHFB simply assumes that Darden et al are lying. He has lost track of something — or willfully ignores it. Reactors do not “produce” COPs. COP is the result of a measurement analysis, and sane measurement includes the use of controls, etc. It is quite easy to calculate COPs that are wildly off, if measurements or analyses of them are in error. IH did “reproduce” Rossi claims, but then identified artifact; that is far more convincing as a negative replication than merely obtaining different results. It appears that when they used Rossi measurement protocols, they also got these elevated COPs.

Or Darden et al are lying, under oath. There isn’t much more room for middle ground here.

[5.] Dameron was still running them as late as January 2016 in the same building where Murray was just getting set up with his modified version of the reactor.

This is irrelevant. It is not clear what IHFB’s point is. I would expect IH to continue to test well beyond the ordinary “give-up” point. The essential point for IH is that what Rossi taught them to do doesn’t work. Whether the set of reactors under test in Doral “worked” or not is actually irrelevant to the suit: Rossi did not successfully transfer working IP with commercial value. Perhaps he waved his magic wand in Doral, applied liberal amounts of Rossi Grease. It doesn’t matter. The set-up to consider that a “GPT” was radically defective, on many grounds.

[6.] That is, until IH boxed everything up and closed shop, according to Murray, in response to the filing of the lawsuit.

Did Murray say “in response to the filing …”? This probably is based on something from the Murray deposition. You can find it on this page, which lists all deposition exhibits. As it happens, we have the entire deposition. It is 423 pages. Which one?

What appears to me is that IH finally gave up spending more money trying to validate the Rossi IP.

However, what did Murray actually say? Starting on deposition p. 102, he is talking about the Dameron tests (apparently IH wanted some independent testing internally, which makes sense.)

20· · · · A.· · Yeah, I remember he had a thermal imager, and
21· ·he kind of described it to us a little bit.· I recall
22· ·asking him to set up a test plan and test procedure and,
23· ·so we could document what was going on, and that just
24· ·fell by the wayside.
25· · · · Q.· · Did you set up a test plan and test procedure
·1· ·for your test?
·2· · · · A.· · Yes, we did.
·3· · · · Q.· · Do you know if that was produced in
·4· ·discovery?
·5· · · · A.· · I’m pretty sure it was.· We took the entire
·6· ·body of all the data and shared it.· So I would imagine
·7· ·it’s somewhere in there, test plans and test procedures.
·8· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And where is the device that you
·9· ·tested now, if you know?
10· · · · A.· · I can’t say today, but I know before we
11· ·closed up shop we took everything related to the
12· ·litigation under the direction of Jones Day and we put
13· ·it all together, and we boxed it up and we put it into
14· ·the locked facility in the back of the building.· So I’m
15· ·sure it’s all in there.

This does not state that the “closing up shop” was “in response to the lawsuit.” Rather, they simply are not like Rossi, who destroyed possible evidence (much more relevant to the lawsuit than what IH was doing privately). They followed legal advice, and it is unlikely that Rossi spoliated the evidence upon legal advice. If so, there might be an attorney in very hot water.

IHFB makes many claims without evidence, and is unreliable.

Alan Smith wrote:

@THH. What was the claimed input power in Lugano? A figure of 800Watts comes to mind, but that’s from memory. I can get a better insulated (and smaller) reactor to 1500C on 160W. So I would thin that 800W (if I am correct) would not need to be any kind of fiddled input measurement.

Smith is being lazy (and my memory was a power increase from 800 early on to 900 W later). It’s easy to look at the Lugano report. Claimed input power was around 810 W., then increased to 904 – 923 W. Claimed temperature from their defective camera analysis was about 1260 C at the lower power input to 1410 C at the higher power input.

Smith is likely correct in that input power measurement error is unlikely in the Lugano test. COP estimated was 3.13 – 3.74, which appears well within range of the blatant calorimetry error.

It’s been claimed that using a thermal camera for calorimetry was wildly inappropriate. I’ll disagree (as did Jed Rothwell). The problem was that they misused the camera, and botched the analysis, compounded by a failure to calibrate under operating conditions (i.e., using a dummy cell at full input power). It appears that one of the shouting matches with Rossi occurred when IH pointed out to Rossi that the cell he was measuring high COP with was a dummy cell. No fuel. Oops! At that point, I suspect, Rossi concluded they were snakes. Only a snake would steal the fuel!

(I have read this dummy cell story but have not confirmed it. Perhaps someone will point to a source. We really do have a mountain of evidence, see this page where I have collected it. I have started to prepare a timeline. If anyone wants to help, please contact me!)


And then there was this from IHFB:

Nigel Appleton wrote:

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Rossi can do anything he likes with the IP, so long as he doesn’t SELL items made using it in the territories already ceded to IH.

While I agree with you on this point, IH is (humorously) claiming otherwise in the suit. They think their territorial license somehow blocks Rossi globally.

Well, what Nigel wrote is substantially true, but not completely true. He cannot do “anything he likes.” In offering licenses, in other territories, IH has, from the Agreement, a right of first refusal. Hydrofusion and certain other pre-existing licensees are explicitly exempted from this.

As usual, IHFB is making things up when describing what IH “thinks.” He should get his mind-reading crystal ball fixed. They do not think what he wrote; but, hey, if they do, perhaps IHFB could quote the source, or at least give us calibration data on that crystal ball.

The bottom line here is that, no matter what IH “thinks,” Rossi could have continued to market his invention, IH could not stop that, except by matching any new offers, and could not stop him from agreeing with Hydrofusion, for one, and providing them IP, if they are still willing to talk to him.


This gift just keeps on giving. When we argue with b-s’ers, if we are not careful, we can get b-s all over us. Sigmoidal, normally quite cogent, wrote this:

IH Fanboy wrote:

Yes, I think the APCO inspired unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success is BS. And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions. Dewey suggested awhile back that he suspected Rossi’s team is gearing up to impeach witnesses. And it probably has something to do with deposition testimony compared to disclosed test report data.

The connection between “unable to substantiate” and APCO is a Planet Rossi trope based on the fact that an APCO consultant (later in business for himself, and who also visited the Doral Plant — or tried to, he may have been rejected, the Rossi email mentioning him and the list of visitors from IH imply that he was not allowed to visit, which would have been the first known clear violation of the Term Sheet) was on cc from the March 2016 announcement, which proves almost nothing. Darden and Vaughn would not care much about publicity, certainly not enough to perjure themselves. Darden and Vaughn are personally at very low risk here, the Rossi attempt to pierce the corporate veil is doomed, it is clearly contrary to law and precedent. However, Sigmoidal replied:

Well, not suprisingly I think your thinking is absurd, as I have implied over and over again.

But even with the extremely remotely possibilty that you are not simply seriously deceiving yourself and Rossi actually has something, there is nothing stopping him from demonstrating his high COP system, right now, this instant.

Well, if he has a high-reliability Quark-X system, nothing would actually be stopping him — other than, perhaps, his health. As to an E-Cat system, it is not at all clear that he has any devices ready to test.

This would have the effect of demolishing IH, winning the court case, awarding him over a quarter of a billion (with a ‘b’) dollars, completely destroying Darden’s reputation, opening up vast amounts of VC capital in Europe and other regions not covered by the license, result in fabulously increased quality of life for all, be the greatest discovery since fire (and that is no exaggeration), result in a virtual lock for the Nobel Prize Rossi so covets, and more.

No, it would not have that effect. First of all, the primary case is about $89 million. The “triple damages” thing is entirely separate, and a demonstration of a real device would have no effect on it, this is about a claim that Darden and Vaughn never intended to pay, and deceived Rossi about Cherokee, etc., all of which is terminally weak, with no substantial evidence having appeared other than Rossi hysteria.

Rossi already ran “demonstrations.” But let’s assume that Sigmoidal actually means rigorous independent testing by reliable experts.

“Greatest discovery since fire” is an exaggeration. Rossi did not discover LENR, nor did he discover NiH. He may have discovered a particular engineering approach, if he hasn’t been entirely a con …. but that latter possibility is looking very, very likely at this point.

No, he would not get the Nobel Prize. There is no Nobel for inventions.

However, Rossi has moved on to even better inventions. The mind boggles trying to imagine how awesome that will be!

Yes, Sigmoidal is being sarcastic, but is feeding certain tropes in doing so. Sarcasm in posts like this doesn’t come across cleanly.

IH Fanboy wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

But if there were any doubt, we know that a dummy reactor was measuring high COP.

Yep, according to Darden’s story, he must have known as early as January of 2014 that it was all a big scam, because a dummy reactor gave the same COP as the other reactors.

This is based on a deposition, and testimony in a deposition, unless controverted, is legally “fact.” However, what IHFB says here is a conclusion from Darden’s testimony, not the testimony. This confusion between fact and conclusions is common for IHFB — and others as well. What that testimony indicates is the possibility or probability of error in measuring COP, which has already been widely suspected. This does not prove it was “all a big scam,” though it certainly raises questions of major error.

The problem is that we have these little things called facts.

IHFB should have his mouth washed out with soap for presenting implications and imaginations as “fact.”

Such as, Darden then proceeded to secure tens of millions of outside investment over the course of the next year and a half,

If Darden had done that and then threw the money at Rossi, it would have been a major problem. Rather, Darden et al continued to investigate, and the major funding raised was used for other projects, not Rossi. IHFB has pointed again and again to the quick reaction of Woodford to the draft IH press release in March, 2016 as if it proved that Woodford was really investing in Rossi and had been deceived. It doesn’t show that at all. There was a hope, obviously, that Rossi technology would pan out and the various failures would have been fixed.

and also required everyone to leave the lab in Dec/January 2016 so that he could carefully and secretively load the scam fuel into Murray’s modified reactor. Wouldn’t want the secrets of the scam fuel to get out.

IHFB is implying that this is inconsistent, but, in fact, it is fully consistent with what we know. That fuel mixture is not “scam fuel,” it would be what Rossi disclosed in 2013, and the failed test (control showing the same apparent heat as the experimental device) does not prove “scam.” It could just as easily show that Rossi had decided to torpedo the IH effort, perhaps feeling that he had not been paid or promised enough. IH simply continued with their plan (to “crush the tests”), and the fuel details divulged by Rossi (real or scam) were kept as a closely-guarded secret. IHFB is sarcastically implying that the appearance of contradiction (in his mind) proves that Darden was lying. This is how IHFB thinks, apparently. It’s not uncommon on Planet Rossi.

Rossi’s reported reaction to that no-fuel finding demonstrates that he is definitely not a scientist. A scientist would be very interested, not angry. However, if that was a no-fuel test without telling Rossi, it would have been (1) brilliant, and (2) very likely to set him off. Rossi clearly cannot stand independent testing, and a test that might show him up, proof that they are snakes.

IHFB went on and on with preposterous claims, as the LF thread on Rossi v. Darden wanders far from the nominal topic with the full collaboration of at least one LF moderator, now over 7000 posts.

JedRothwell wrote

Wyttenbach wrote:

Unluckily the burden of proof is on the IH side. They signed a foolish contract…

No, in the U.S. court system the burden of proof is on Rossi. The defendant is assumed innocent. You have to show strong evidence that the test worked, I.H. knows it, and it tried to cheat Rossi. I.H. cannot be found guilty if they have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the test results.

Jed is confusing civil with criminal liability. “Guilt” is not an issue in civil cases. A clue is that mens rea (guilty intention) is not required to find civil fraud. The basic Rossi case was a claim of breach of contract, so for a court to find liability under the contract, the elements would have to be shown. The test “working” was not actually part of the contract, this was first noticed by Planet Rossi, which thought that the case was ironclad.

Basically, test results were up to the “ERV.” That is how it was written, Wyttenback is correct about that. However, there are some problems for the Rossi claim. First of all, the Agreement was not followed in setting up the faux GPT. To allow a postponed GPT, the Second Amendment was attempted, but that failed because of Ampenergo refusal to sign, a fact that Rossi left out of his complaint. IH only claimed, in their MTD, a technical failure, missing signatures (and then the “6 cylinder unit” issue, which simply shows that the Second Amendment, never having been completely executed, was ignored (until it came time for Rossi to make his $89 million claim). Easily, IH and Rossi could have made a side-agreement, but Rossi did not attempt that, apparently. Instead, he set up a faux customer to encourage IH to give him possession of the reactors, and arranged for Penon to measure heat — all of this without mentioning “GPT.” Far from getting the signatures of “all parties” to the start of a GPT, as the Second Amendment required, had it been valid.

If Rossi and IH had clearly agreed on Doral as a GPT, and Penon as the ERV for it, Rossi’s case would have been far stronger. Yes, IH could possibly defend on various bases, and a claim of fraud would be one of these. But the initial presumption would be as the Agreement had it: the ERV report was binding. I think IH felt safe with that because the originally contemplated GPT would have been in their facility where they could observe it very closely.

There is no presumption as Jed describes in civil cases. Rather, the judge or a jury is looking for equity, and a jury decision must be unanimous — in Federal Court — and there is no presumption at law as to which party is right. A requirement for absolute proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases) could be quite unfair. The standard is merely the preponderance of the evidence, for the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or the jury in a jury trial).

(That is why O.J. Simpson could be found “not guilty” in a criminal trial for murder, but responsible for damages in a civil case.)


oldguy wrote:

By the way, can you point out to me where Penon’s deposition was under oath? I have “lost” that. I would think that it is in there but not finding it.

The attestation of the notary.

By the way, there is a list of all deposition exhibits, with a Table of Contents at the top, so that any deposition can be quickly found, and I’m going over it to list what pages are included in each copy. I may then create composites with all the pages we have.

RvD: Depositions

This includes all copies as-filed, and then includes affidavits, attested declarations, and expert reports.

Bass
Cassarino
Dameron
Darden
Fabiani
Florida Power & Light
Fogleman
Johnson
Mazzarino
Murray
Pace
Penon
Rossi
Shaya
Smith
Stokes
Vaughn
Weaver
West
Wong

Vaughn

== 0070.1_IH_response_to_1st_Rossi_interrog (attested by Vaughn)
== 0070-4_vaughn_response_to_1st_rossi_interrog
== 0179.6_Exhibit_6 Deposition of Vaughn
== 0194.15_Exhibit_15 Declaration of J.T. Vaughn
== 0207.19_Exhibit_19 deposition of Industrial Heat, rep by Vaughn
== 0207.21_Exhibit_21 Rossi Deposition of Vaughn
== 0207.26_Exhibit_26 IH responses to 2nd interrog.  (attested Vaughn)
== 0207.29_Exhibit_29 IPH reponses to 1st Rossi interrog. (attested by Vaughn)
== 0214.04 Exhibit 3 Deposition of Vaughn for Industrial Heat
== 0214.14 Exhibit 13 Deposition of Vaughn
== 0214.19 Exhibit 18 IH response to Rossi Interrogatory 2 (att. Vaughn)
== 0214.34 Exhibit 33 IH responses to Rossi interrogatories 1 (attested Vaughn)
== 236-05 – Exhibit 5 Deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 236-06 – Exhibit 6 Deposition of Vaughn
== 236-11 – Exhibit 11 IPH resp and obj to 1st Rossi interrog (att. Vaughn)
== 236-24 – Exhibit 24 IH responses and obj to 2nd Rossi interrog (att. Vaughn)
== 238-06 – Exhibit 48 deposition of Vaughn
== 238-10 – Exhibit 52 deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 238-29 – Exhibit 71 supplement to IH responses and obj to 1st Rossi interrog (Vaughn?)
== 242.2 Exhibit B deposition for IH by Vaughn
== 242.6 Exhibit F deposition of Vaughn
== 243-02 – Exhibit B deposition for IH by Vaughn excerpts
== 243-06 – Exhibit F  deposition of Vaughn excerpts
== 245-05 – Exhibit 5 from deposition of Vaughn 17.5 MB
== 245-11 – Exhibit 11 from deposition of Vaughn
== 245-42 – Exhibit 42 Declaration of Vaughn
== 254-1 Exhibit A from deposition for IH by Vaughn
== 254-2 Exhibit B from deposition of Vaughn
== 254-3 Exhibit C from deposition of Vaughn
== 254-4 Exhibit D from deposition of Vaughn
== 256-05 – Exhibit 5 deposition of Vaughn 17.5 MB file
== 262-01 Exhibit 1 Deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 262-07 Exhibit 7 Deposition of Vaughn
== 264-15 – Exhibit 15 Declaration of Vaughn
== 251-01 – Exhibit 23 (0207.23 was blank) Declaration of Vaughn
== 242.14 Exhibit N IH resp to 1st Rossi interrogatories (att. Vaughn)

Mazzarino

== 0138.1_Mazzarino_Affidavit covering founding of IH and relationship with IH
== 238-26 – Exhibit 68 deposition of Mazzarino
== 242.3 Exhibit C deposition of Mazzarino
== 243-03 – Exhibit C  deposition of Mazzarino excerpts

Weaver

== 0158.1_Dewey_Weaver_declaration (on behalf of DRV)
== 0167.8_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Dewey Weaver
== 0183.4_Exhibit_D Declaration of Dewey Weaver re NK Patent Law (same as 158-1)

Fogleman

== 0179.7_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Fogelman for IPH
== 0179.8_Exhibit_8 Deposition of Fogelman for Cherokee
== 0214.02 Exhibit_2 Deposition of Fogelman for Cherokee
== 0214.18 Exhibit 17 IPH deposition by Fogelman
== 236-01 – Exhibit 1 Deposition for Cherokee by Fogleman
== 236-08 – Exhibit 8 Deposition for IPH by Fogleman 4.9 MB file
== 238-05 – Exhibit 47 deposition for IPH by Fogleman
== 243-15 – Exhibit O deposition for IPH by Fogelman excerpts
== 253-03 – Exhibit 3 from deposition for IPH by Fogleman
== 262-11 Exhibit 11 Deposition for IPH by Fogleman

Smith

== 0194.01_Exhibit 1 Expert report of Rick A. Smith, P.E.
== 0215.02_Exhibit_B Expert Report of Rick A. Smith, P.E.
== 0215.04_Exhibit_D 5.9 MB file Full Deposition of Smith
== 0214.28 Exhibit 27 Deposition of Smith (see full copy at 215.04)
== 0215.02_Exhibit_B Expert Report of Rick A. Smith, P.E.
== 0215.04_Exhibit_D 5.9 MB file Full Deposition of Smith
== 0233.2_Exhibit_B Expert report of Smith (duplicates Rossi 0215.02_Exhibit_B)
== 0233.4_Exhibit_D Deposition of Rick A. Smith (excerpt from Rossi 0215.04_Exhibit_D)
== 0235.01_Exhibit_1 Smith expert report
== 0235.05_Exhibit_5 Declaration of Smith re results of access to Doral
== 0235.10_Exhibit_10 Smith supplemental report 2 MB file.
== 0235.13_Exhibit_13 Deposition of Smith
== 248-6_Exhibit_6 supplemental expert report of Smith 2.1 MB
== 252-04 – Exhibit D expert report of Smith
== 252-05 – Exhibit E supplemental expert report of Smith 2.0 MB
== 252-06 – Exhibit F from deposition of Smith
== 262-08 Exhibit 8 Expert Report of Smith
== 264-02 – Exhibit 2 Expert Report of Smith

Dameron

== 0194.02_Exhibit_2 Deposition of T. Barker Dameron (IH engineer)
== 0207.60_Exhibit_60 deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 0214.21 Exhibit 20 deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 0235.15_Exhibit_15 Deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 236-48 – Exhibit 48 deposition of Dameron
== 242.9 Exhibit I  deposition of Dameron
== 243-09 – Exhibit I deposition of Dameron excerpts
== 243-12 – Exhibit L deposition of Dameron excerpts
== 264-03 – Exhibit 3 Deposition of Dameron

Rossi

== 0194.03_Exhibit_3 Deposition of Leonardo Corp by Rossi + Darden-Penon emails
== 0194.07_Exhibit_7 Video Deposition of Rossi
== 0194.08_Exhibit_8 Video Deposition of JM Products by Rossi
== 0207.02_Exhibit 2 Deposition of Rossi
== 0207.08_Exhibit_8 Rossi certification re representations in Agreement
== 0207.14_Exhibit_14 formal Admissions of Rossi
== 0207.17_Exhibit_17 Deposition of Leonardo, rep by Rossi
== 0207.24_Exhibit_24 Rossi responses to interrog.
== 0207.36_Exhibit_36 Deposition of JMP, represented by Rossi
== 0214.01 Exhibit_1 Affidavit of Andrea Rossi
== 0235.06_Exhibit_6 Deposition of Rossi
== 0235.07_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Rossi
== 0235.08_Exhibit_8 Deposition of JMP represented by Rossi
== 236-13 – Exhibit 13 Deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 236-15 – Exhibit 15 Deposition of Rossi
== 236-23 – Exhibit 23 Rossi response to 1st IH Request for Admissions
== 236-33 – Exhibit 33 JMP deposition by Rossi
== 238-03 – Exhibit 45 deposition of Rossi
== 238-04 – Exhibit 46 affidavit of Rossi supporting opposition to IH MSJ
== 238-17 – Exhibit 59 deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 238-22 – Exhibit 64 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 248-3_Exhibit_3 deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 248-4_Exhibit_4 deposition of Rossi
== 248-5_Exhibit_5 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 264-01 – Exhibit 1 Deposition of Rossi 4.2 MB
== 264-04 – Exhibit 4 Deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 264-08 – Exhibit 8 Deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 245-06 – Exhibit 6 from deposition of Rossi 10.5 MB
== 245-07 – Exhibit 7 from deposition of JMP by Rossi 15.2 MB
== 243-13 – Exhibit M Affidavit of Rossi in support of 3pDef MSJ
== 243-14 – Exhibit N IH responses to 1st Rossi interrog excerpts
== 245-12 – Exhibit 12 from deposition of Leonardo by Rossi 21 MB
== 256-01 – Exhibit 1 deposition for JMP by Rossi 15.2 MB file

Murray

== 0194.05_Exhibit 5 Expert disclosure of Joseph A. Murray (not the disclosure, a description.)
== 0207.57_Exhibit_57 deposition of Murray (for full copy see 0215.03)
== 0214.15 Exhibit 14 Deposition of Murray (see also full deposition at 215.03)
== 0215.01_Exhibit_A Expert Disclosure of Joseph A. Murray
== 0215.03_Exhibit_C 5.6 MB file Full Deposition of Murray
== 0233.1_Exhibit_A Expert disclosure of Murray (duplicates Rossi 0215.01_Exhibit_A)
== 0233.5_Exhibit_E Deposition of Murray (excerpt from Rossi 0215.03_Exhibit_C)
== 0235.02_Exhibit_2 about Murray expert report
== 0235.09_Exhibit_9 Murray — Supplemental documents
== 236-45 – Exhibit 45 deposition of Murray
== 242.7 Exhibit G deposition of Murray
== 243-07 – Exhibit G deposition of Murray excerpts
== 245-14 – Exhibit 14 from deposition of Murray 17.3 MB
== 252-02 – Exhibit B from Murray deposition
== 252-03 – Exhibit C expert disclosure of Murray
== 254-6 Exhibit F from deposition of Murray
== 256-06 – Exhibit 6 deposition of Murray 17.3 MB file
== 262-10 Exhibit 10 Deposition of Murray
== 264-06 – Exhibit 6 Expert Disclosure of Murray
== 264-19 – Exhibit 19 Deposition of Murray
== 245-15 – Exhibit 15 plant data and expert disclosure of Murray

Wong

== 0194.06_Exhibit_6 Video Deposition of Wong (Rossi expert)
== 0197.01_Exhibit_1 Expert disclosure of Kaifui V. Wong
== 0197.02_Exhibit_2 Video deposition of Wong
== 0233.3_Exhibit_C Expert disclosure of Wong (duplicates IH 0197.01_Exhibit_1)
== 238-24 – Exhibit 66 expert disclosure of Wong
== 248-1_Exhibit_1 Expert disclosure of Wong 2.9 MB
== 248-2_Exhibit_2 deposition of Wong
== 264-07 – Exhibit 7 Deposition of Wong

Penon

== 0194.09_Exhibit_9 Deposition of Fabio Penon 4 pp per page, starting with 106,162,166,170,190,206,210
== 0207.10_Exhibit_10 Deposition of Penon 4 pp per page, starting with 2,6,98,102,106,114,118,134,146,150,154,166,170,190,206,210.
== 0235.14_Exhibit_14 Deposition of Penon
== 236-17 – Exhibit 17 Deposition of Penon
== 243-08 – Exhibit H deposition of Penon excerpts
== 238-23 – Exhibit 65 deposition of Penon
== 242.8 Exhibit H deposition of Penon
== 245-20 – Exhibit 20 from deposition of Penon 11.2 MB
== 264-09 – Exhibit 9 Deposition of Penon

Fabiani

== 0194.10_Exhibit_10 Deposition of Fulvio Fabiani (apparently) 4 pp per page, starting 30,34,38,46,82,86,90,94,98,102,146,150 plus Dep Ex. 3.
== 0207.56_Exhibit_56 deposition of Fabiani  4 pp per page, starting 2,30,34,38,42,46,82,86,98,134,138,142,146
== 236-44 – Exhibit 44 deposition of Fabiani 4 pp per page, starting 2,30,34,38,42,46,82,86, 98,134,138,142,146
== 245-19 – Exhibit 19 from deposition of Fabiani 19.0 MB  4 pp per page, starting 2,30,34,38,42,46,82,86,98,134,138,142,146
== 264-10 – Exhibit 10 Deposition of Fabiani  4 pp per page, starting 2,30,34,38,46,82,86,90,94,102,98,134,142,146,150

Darden

== 0207.06_Exhibit_6 Declaration of Thomas F. Darden
== 0207.09_Exhibit_9 7.3 MB file Deposition of Darden
== 0214.10 Exhibit 9 Deposition of Darden
== 0226.3_Attachment_3 Deposition of Thomas Darden re lack of Ampenergo signature & GPT
== 0228.1_Exhibit_A Darden testimony (re Zalli relationship)
== 236-02 – Exhibit 2 Declaration of Darden
== 236-03 – Exhibit 3 Deposition of Darden 7 MB file
== 238-08 – Exhibit 50 deposition of Darden
== 242.1 Exhibit A deposition of Darden
== 243-01 – Exhibit A deposition of Darden excerpts
== 245-04 – Exhibit 4 from deposition of Darden 11.5 MB
== 245-25 – Exhibit 25 declaration of Darden
== 253-02 – Exhibit 2 from Darden deposition
== 254-5 Exhibit E from deposition of Darden
== 256-02 – Exhibit 2 deposition of Darden 11.5 MB file
== 262-05 Exhibit 5 Deposition of Darden
== 264-20 – Exhibit 20 Deposition of Darden

Cassarino

== 0207.12_Exhibit_12 Deposition of Cassarino (Ampenergo) 4 pp/p, starts 2,6,78,86,190,206,210,242
== 236-04 – Exhibit 4 Deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino as above
== 238-13 – Exhibit 55 deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino pp 78-79 only
== 256-07 – Exhibit 7 deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino 4 pp starts 214

Pace

== 0207.28_Exhibit_28 Declaration of Pace re 0207.27_Exhibit_27
== 236-26 – Exhibit 26 Declaration of Pace, IH counsel, re 236-25 – Exhibit 25

Johnson

== 0207.37_Exhibit_37 Deposition of Johnson
== 236-30 – Exhibit 30 deposition of Johnson
== 238-15 – Exhibit 57 deposition of Johnson
== 242.10 Exhibit J deposition of Johnson
== 245-08 – Exhibit 8 from deposition of Johnson 34.8 MB
== 245-10 – Exhibit 10 from deposition of Johnson 19.3 MB
== 256-03 – Exhibit 3 deposition of Johnson 35.8 MB file

Bass

== 0207.48_Exhibit_48 Deposition of Bass
== 236-34 – Exhibit 34 deposition of Bass
== 242.5 Exhibit E deposition of Bass 3.1 MB 
== 243-05 – Exhibit E  deposition of Bass excerpts 3.1 MB
== 245-13 – Exhibit 13 from deposition of Bass 11.1 MB
== 256-04 – Exhibit 4 deposition of Bass 11.1 MB file OCR of pp 110-121

Stokes

== 0207.52_Exhibit_52 deposition of James Stokes, Florida Department of Health
== 236-36 – Exhibit 36 deposition of Stokes
== 245-31 – Exhibit 31 deposition of Stokes 5.8 MB

West

== 0207.61_Exhibit_61 deposition of Barry West
== 236-49 – Exhibit 49 deposition of West
== 238-21 – Exhibit 63 deposition of Barry West
== 242.4 Exhibit D deposition of Barry West
== 243-04 – Exhibit D deposition of West excerpts
== 245-18 – Exhibit 18 from deposition of West 15.0 MB

Shaya

== 0228.2_Exhibit_B Declaration of Uzi Shaya re Levi Declaration

Florida Power & Light

== 236-47 – Exhibit 47 Florida Power & Light subpoena and data 3.6 MB file

RvD: List of admissible evidence

This is a compilation of admissible evidence (on the face) for Rossi v. Darden, insofar as it has been revealed through public filings. It includes responses to interrogatories, quoted in requests for judicial intervention or in other motions, deposition excerpts (or a few are complete), and attested exhibits (as with motions for summary judgment).

A separate section will cover documents provided (such as emails); strictly speaking, these are not admissible without some attestation of authenticity. However, where included in the later Motions, they have been included and are not separately listed.

The expert reports are included, though it is not clear that they include “penalty of perjury” attestations.

Except for the separate section, these are in order of date or DE number, which amounts to the same sort.

== 0070.1_IH_response_to_1st_Rossi_interrog
== 0070-4_vaughn_response_to_1st_rossi_interrog
== 0138.1_Mazzarino_Affidavit covering founding of IH and relationship with IH
== 0158.1_Dewey_Weaver_declaration (on behalf of DRV)
== 0167.8_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Dewey Weaver
== 0179.6_Exhibit_6 Deposition of Vaughn
== 0179.7_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Fogelman for IPH
== 0179.8_Exhibit_8 Deposition of Fogelman for Cherokee
== 0183.1_Exhibit_A Meyers Bigel representation agreement
== 0183.2_Exhibit_B IH-DRV agreement
== 0183.4_Exhibit_D Declaration of Dewey Weaver re NK Patent Law (same as 158-1)
== 0194.01_Exhibit 1 Expert report of Rick A. Smith, P.E.
== 0194.02_Exhibit_2 Deposition of T. Barker Dameron (IH engineer)
== 0194.03_Exhibit_3 Deposition of Leonardo Corp by Rossi + Darden-Penon emails
== 0194.05_Exhibit 5 Expert disclosure of Joseph A. Murray (not the disclosure, a description.)
== 0194.06_Exhibit_6 Video Deposition of Wong (Rossi expert)
== 0194.07_Exhibit_7 Video Deposition of Rossi
== 0194.08_Exhibit_8 Video Deposition of JM Products by Rossi
== 0194.09_Exhibit_9 Deposition of Fabio Penon
== 0194.10_Exhibit_10 Deposition of Fulvio Fabiani (apparently)
== 0194.15_Exhibit_15 Declaration of J.T. Vaughn
== 0197.01_Exhibit_1 Expert disclosure of Kaifui V. Wong
== 0197.02_Exhibit_2 Video deposition of Wong
At this point, documents are being asserted with Motions for Summary Judgment and responses. These documents should be attested as true. I have not checked this. Some of these documents are also from various motions and may not be attested.
== 0207.01_Exhibit_1 10.5 MB file License Agreement
== 0207.02_Exhibit 2 Deposition of Rossi
== 0207.03_ Exhibit_3 email Rossi to Darden and Vaughn, April 23, 2013.
== 0207.04_Exhibit_4 Rossi to Darden and Vaughn, April 24, 2013.
== 0207.05_Exhibit_5 1st Amendment to License Agreement
== 0207.06_Exhibit_6 Declaration of Thomas F. Darden
== 0207.07_Exhibit_7 Assignment of License Agreement to IPH
== 0207.08_Exhibit_8 Rossi certification re representations in Agreement
== 0207.09_Exhibit_9 7.3 MB file Deposition of Darden
== 0207.10_Exhibit_10 Deposition of Penon
== 0207.11_Exhibit_11 email Penon to Darden Validation Test 2013
== 0207.12_Exhibit_12 Deposition of Cassarino (Ampenergo)
== 0207.13_Exhibit_13 $3,219,950 paid, IH to Ampenergo, 2013.
== 0207.14_Exhibit_14 formal Admissions of Rossi
== 0207.15_Exhibit_15 2nd Amendment to License Agreement
== 0207.16_Exhibit_16 Contribution Agreement, IH & Ampenergo
== 0207.17_Exhibit_17 Deposition of Leonardo, rep by Rossi
== 0207.18_Exhibit_18 email Cassarino, Rossi, Darden, Boeing
== 0207.19_Exhibit_19 deposition of Industrial Heat, rep by Vaughn
== 0207.20_Exhibit_20 Six Cylinder Unit (photos)
== 0207.21_Exhibit_21 Rossi Deposition of Vaughn
== 0207.22_Exhibit_22 (Filed under seal) see 247-01 – Exhibit 22
== 0207.23_Exhibit_23 (blank) see 251-01 – Exhibit 23  Declaration of Vaughn
== 0207.24_Exhibit_24 Rossi responses to interrog.
== 0207.25_Exhibit_25 Rossi emails to supporters
== 0207.26_Exhibit_26 IH responses to interrog.
== 0207.27_Exhibit_27 Pace to Annesser 2/17/2016 re patent assignment
== 0207.28_Exhibit_28 Declaration of Pace re Exhibit 27
== 0207.29_Exhibit_29 IPH reponses to Rossi interrog.
== 0207.30_Exhibit_30 (filed under seal) see == 247-02 – Exhibit 30
== 0207.31_Exhibit_31 (filed under seal) see 247-03 – Exhibit 31
== 0207.32_Exhibit_32 (filed under seal) see 247-04 – Exhibit 32
== 0207.33_Exhibit_33 (filed under seal) see 247-05 – Exhibit 33
== 0207.34_Exhibit_34 emails Rossi (prev exhibit 16) re Doral proposal
== 0207.35_Exhibit_35 email Rossi/Darden, re Ampenergo, IH Memo to investors
== 0207.36_Exhibit_36 Deposition of JMP, represented by Rossi
== 0207.37_Exhibit_37 Deposition of Johnson
== 0207.38_Exhibit_38 JMC/JMP corporate papers
== 0207.39_Exhibit_39 Darden/Rossi negotiations re Test Sheet
== 0207.40_Exhibit_40 Darden/Rossi re JM not wanting to disclose identity
== 0207.41_Exhitbit_41 Rossi describes interactions with the customer “in London.”
== 0207.42_Exhibit_42 marked up Term Sheet
== 0207.43_Exhibit_43 Johnson provides OFAC declaration of ownership to IH
== 0207.44_Exhibit_44 Rossi March 2015 RFP for Johnson Matthey for 10 kg platinum sponge
== 0207.45_Exhibit_45 Term Sheet (prev exhibit 17)
== 0207.46_Exhibit_46 Rossi email to Johnson about rental of Doral and eviction
== 0207.47_Exhibit_47 various Rossi emails
== 0207.48_Exhibit_48 Deposition of Bass
== 0207.49_Exhibit_49 Rossi to Darden 2/19/2015
== 0207.50_Exhibit_50 Rossi – Johnson re power reports to IH & “Johnson Matthey”
== 0207.51_Exhibit_51 Bass business card
== 0207.52_Exhibit_52 deposition of James Stokes, Florida Department of Health
== 0207.53_Exhibit_53 Rossi 9/2014 to Johnson
== 0207.54_Exhibit_54 Rossi to Johnson re address of JMP
== 0207.55_Exhibit_55 Penon data
== 0207.56_Exhibit_56 deposition of Fabiani
== 0207.57_Exhibit_57 deposition of Murray (for full copy see 0215.03)
== 0207.58_Exhibit_58 Penon all reports as of February 23, 2016
== 0207.59_Exhibit_59 Florida Power & Light data
== 0207.60_Exhibit_60 deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 0207.61_Exhibit_61 deposition of Barry West
== 0207.62_Exhibit_62 Rossi instructions to Bass, March 24. 2015, and February 15, 2016
== 0207.63_Exhibit_63 Rossi to Vaughn refusing entry to Murray 7/13/2015 (former Exhibit 19)
== 0207.64_Exhibit_64 12/9/2015, Vaughn to Rossi/Johnson requesting visit, Johnson response
== 0207.65_Exhibit_65 Queries for Penon by Murray, former Exhibit 5.
== 0207.66_Exhibit_66 payments from IH to USQL
== 0207.67_Exhibit_67 3.9 MB file IH/USQL Agreement
== 0207.68_Exhibit_68 4.2 MB file  Vaughn/Fabiani mails re 2014 Agreement
== 0207.69_Exhibit_69 11.3 MB file IH/USQL Agreement 9/1/2015 to3/31/2016
== 0207.70_Exhibit_70 3.5 MB file Fabiani to Vaughn 4/2016, Murray to Fabiani 5/2016
== 0207.71_Exhibit_71 Murray to Fabiani 3/22/2016 and 4/1/2016
== 0207.72_Exhibit_72 Murray to Fabiani 4/26/2016 and 5/16/2016
== 0207.73_Exhibit_73 Mail from Fabiani to Murray 4/25/2016
== 0207.74_Exhibit_74 Fabiani to IH 4/6/2016
== 0207.75_Exhibit_75 corporate confirmation Leonardo New Hampshire active 3/21/2017
== 0214.01 Exhibit_1 Affidavit of Andrea Rossi
== 0214.02 Exhibit_2 Deposition of Fogelman for Cherokee
== 0214.03 Exhibit 2A Cherokee web page
== 0214.04 Exhibit 3 Deposition of Vaughn for Industrial Heat
== 0214.05 Exhibit 4 3.6 MB file License Agreement and 2013 wire transfer
== 0214.06 Exhibit 5 First Amendment to License Agreement
== 0214.07 Exhibit 6 Assignment to IPH
== 0214.08 Exhibit 7 2.1 MB file Second Amendment to License Agreement
== 0214.09 Exhibit 8 Amended Assignment and Assumption to IPH
== 0214.10 Exhibit 9 Deposition of Darden
== 0214.11 Exhibit 10 Rossi email re Validation Test
== 0214.12 Exhibit 11 Dewey Weaver critique of Validation Test protocol
== 0214.13 Exhibit 12 Penon report on 2013 Validation Test
== 0214.14 Exhibit 13 Deposition of Vaughn
== 0214.15 Exhibit 14 Deposition of Murray (see also full deposition at 215.03)
== 0214.16 Exhibit 15 Validation Agreement re 2013 transfer of payment and IP
== 0214.17 Exhibit 16 Validation verification notice
== 0214.18 Exhibit 17 IPH deposition by Fogelman
== 0214.19 Exhibit 18 IH response to Rossi Interrogatory 2
== 0214.20 Exhibit 19 email Weaver to Vaughn, and Vaughn to Darden re 2013 test
== 0214.21 Exhibit 20 deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 0214.22 Exhibit 21 Vaughn to Darden 2013 re activities
== 0214.23 Exhibit 22 7.0 MB file IH business plan and 2014 memo
== 0214.24 Exhibit 23 Rossi to Darden about Validation test. (duplicates Ex. 11?)
== 0214.25 Exhibit 24 Vaughn, 2012-2014 timeline
== 0214.26 Exhibit 25 Rossi/Penon “test plan.” 2/10/2015
== 0214.27 Exhibit 26 Rossi to Darden 2/19/2015
== 0214.28 Exhibit 27 Deposition of Smith (see full copy at 215.04)
== 0214.29 Exhibit 28 12/2/2013 Vaughn to Weaver experimental report
== 0214.30 Exhibit 29 2/19/2015 Rossi to McLaughlin (APCO)
== 0214.31 Exhibit 30 2/2/2015 Joe Pike to Rossi
== 0214.32 Exhibit 31 2/21/2015 Pike to Rossi
== 0214.33 Exhibit 32 2.1 MB file draft Penon Report
== 0214.34 Exhibit 33 IH responses to Rossi interrogatories 1
== 0214.35 Exhibit 34 April 2015 Darden Memo to Lamacraft (Woodford)
== 0214.36 Exhibit 35 March 4, 2016 on IH press release
== 0214.37 Exhibit 36 Final Penon report
== 0214.38 Exhibit 37 Vaughn re Rossi/Cook paper
== 0214.39 Exhibit 38 Darden to Rossi re Rossi/Cook paper
== 0214.40 Exhibit 39 Darden to Rossi congratulating him on Rossi/Cook paper
== 0214.41 Exhibit 40 Rossi to Vaughn explaining that his attorney being CEO of JMP is a “guarantee.”
== 0214.42 Exhibit 41 Darden to Pike raising “picky issues,” 3/23/2015
== 0215.01_Exhibit_A Expert Disclosure of Joseph A. Murray
== 0215.02_Exhibit_B Expert Report of Rick A. Smith, P.E.
== 0215.03_Exhibit_C 5.6 MB file Full Deposition of Murray
== 0215.04_Exhibit_D 5.9 MB file Full Deposition of Smith
== 0226.3_Attachment_3 Deposition of Thomas Darden re lack of Ampenergo signature & GPT
== 0228.1_Exhibit_A Darden testimony
== 0228.2_Exhibit_B Declaration of Uzi Shaya re Levi Declaration
== 0233.1_Exhibit_A Expert disclosure of Murray (duplicates Rossi 0215.01_Exhibit_A)
== 0233.2_Exhibit_B Expert report of Smith (duplicates Rossi 0215.02_Exhibit_B)
== 0233.3_Exhibit_C Expert disclosure of Wong (duplicates IH 0197.01_Exhibit_1)
== 0233.4_Exhibit_D Deposition of Rick A. Smith (excerpt from Rossi 0215.04_Exhibit_D)
== 0233.5_Exhibit_E Deposition of Murray (excerpt from Rossi 0215.03_Exhibit_C)
== 0235.01_Exhibit_1 Smith expert report
== 0235.02_Exhibit_2 about Murray expert report
== 0235.03_Exhibit_3 IH request for access to Doral premises
== 0235.04_Exhibit_4 negotiations re access 3 MB file.
== 0235.05_Exhibit_5 Declaration of Smith re results of access to Doral
== 0235.06_Exhibit_6 Deposition of Rossi
== 0235.07_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Rossi
== 0235.08_Exhibit_8 Deposition of JMP represented by Rossi
== 0235.09_Exhibit_9 Murray — Supplemental documents
== 0235.10_Exhibit_10 Smith supplemental report 2 MB file.
== 0235.11_Exhibit_11 Composite: Murray/Darden/Fabiani/Vaughn/etc., July 2015 concerns 3 MB file.
== 0235.12_Exhibit_12 Disclosures of parties
== 0235.13_Exhibit_13 Deposition of Smith
== 0235.14_Exhibit_14 Deposition of Penon
== 0235.15_Exhibit_15 Deposition of T. Barker Dameron
== 236-01 – Exhibit 1 Deposition for Cherokee by Fogleman
== 236-02 – Exhibit 2 Declaration of Darden
== 236-03 – Exhibit 3 Deposition of Darden 7 MB file
== 236-04 – Exhibit 4 Deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino
== 236-05 – Exhibit 5 Deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 236-06 – Exhibit 6 Deposition of Vaughn
== 236-07 – Exhibit 7 Notes from telephone conversations, Cassarino (Ampenergo)
== 236-08 – Exhibit 8 Deposition for IPH by Fogleman 4.9 MB file
== 236-09 – Exhibit 9 emails Darden and Rossi June 2015
== 236-10 – Exhibit 10 Term Sheet (signed Rossi, Vaughn, Johnson)
== 236-11 – Exhibit 11 IPH resp and obj to 1st Rossi interrog
== 236-12 – Exhibit 12 Rossi JONP (blog) posts
== 236-13 – Exhibit 13 Deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 236-14 – Exhibit 14 Leonardo Fed Inc tax returns 2012, 2013 15.9 MB file
== 236-15 – Exhibit 15 Deposition of Rossi
== 236-16 – Exhibit 16 Email Vaughn, Rossi 2013
== 236-17 – Exhibit 17 Deposition of Penon
== 236-18 – Exhibit 18 Email Penon to IH, first eval, May 2013
== 236-19 – Exhibit 19 Email Rossi – IH, 2012
== 236-20 – Exhibit 20 Agreement – Ampenergo and IH 2013 modifying 2012 Agmt
== 236-21 – Exhibit 21 Email Rossi, Vaughn, Cassarino, Boeing, 2014
== 236-22 – Exhibit 22 6 Cylinder Unit photos
== 236-23 – Exhibit 23 Rossi response to 1st IH Request for Admissions
== 236-24 – Exhibit 24 IH responses and obj to 2nd Rossi interrog
== 236-25 – Exhibit 25 Feb. 2016 Letter Pace to Annesser re license assignment 3.8 MB file
== 236-26 – Exhibit 26 Declaration of Pace, IH counsel, re 236-25
== 236-27 – Exhibit 27 IH journal entries payments to Rossi
== 236-28 – Exhibit 28 Rossi – Darden 2014 emails
== 236-29 – Exhibit 29 email July 2014 Darden-Cassarino-Vaughn-Mazzarino-Rossi
== 236-30 – Exhibit 30 deposition of Johnson
== 236-31 – Exhibit 31 Rossi 2014 emails to Darden and Vaughn re customer identity
== 236-32 – Exhibit 32 2014 emails Johnson-Vaughn, including signed OFAC declaration
== 236-33 – Exhibit 33 JMP deposition by Rossi
== 236-34 – Exhibit 34 deposition of Bass
== 236-35 – Exhibit 35 Rossi instructions to Johnson secretary
== 236-36 – Exhibit 36 deposition of Stokes
== 236-37 – Exhibit 37 Leonardo sublease Doral to JMP
== 236-38 – Exhibit 38 2015 emails Rossi-IH-Mazzarino et al-Johnson-Cassarino et al-Bass
== 236-39 – Exhibit 39 February 2015 emails Rossi-IH-J&D Pike
== 236-40 – Exhibit 40 Johnson to IH invoice requests – email Rossi – Johnson (Sauer)
== 236-41 – Exhibit 41 Bass business card as Director of Engineering for JMP
== 236-42 – Exhibit 42 Rossi instructions to Johnson re JMP address and invoice request
== 236-43 – Exhibit 43 Plant data – Penon report – handwritten temperature record 3.3 MB file
== 236-44 – Exhibit 44 deposition of Fabiani
== 236-45 – Exhibit 45 deposition of Murray
== 236-46 – Exhibit 46 email Feb 2016 Penon to IH – Expert Disclosure of Murray 2.5 MB file
== 236-47 – Exhibit 47 Florida Power & Light subpoena and data 3.6 MB file
== 236-48 – Exhibit 48 deposition of Dameron
== 236-49 – Exhibit 49 deposition of West
== 236-50 – Exhibit 50 emails Feb-Mar 2015 Rossi-Bass
== 236-51 – Exhibit 51 emails July 2015 Rossi-Vaughn re Murray visit etc
== 236-52 – Exhibit 52 2015 emails IH-Rossi-Johnson re proposed December plant visit
== 236-53 – Exhibit 53 Murray queries for Penon, original exhibit 5
== 236-54 – Exhibit 54 report of IH payments to USQL (Fabiani)
== 236-55 – Exhibit 55 certificate of good standing, Leonardo New Hampshire
== 238-01 – Exhibit 43 Incorporation Leonardo Florida 2010 1.9 MB file
== 238-02 – Exhibit 44 2013 email Rossi-IH re Validation Test
== 238-03 – Exhibit 45 deposition of Rossi
== 238-04 – Exhibit 46 affidavit of Rossi supporting opposition to IH MSJ
== 238-05 – Exhibit 47 deposition for IPH by Fogleman
== 238-06 – Exhibit 48 deposition of Vaughn
== 238-07 – Exhibit 49 2013 email Vaughn-Rossi re closing on $10 million payment
== 238-08 – Exhibit 50 deposition of Darden
== 238-09 – Exhibit 51 2014 radiation safety email to Darden
== 238-10 – Exhibit 52 deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 238-11 – Exhibit 53 2014 emails Rossi-Darden re customer for plant power
== 238-12 – Exhibit 54 2013 emails Rossi-IH re Validation Test
== 238-13 – Exhibit 55 deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino
== 238-14 – Exhibit 56 emails 2014 Rossi-IH re customer plan
== 238-15 – Exhibit 57 deposition of Johnson
== 238-16 – Exhibit 58 June 2014 email Rossi to IH and Joe Pike
== 238-17 – Exhibit 59 deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 238-18 – Exhibit 60 Term Sheet revision display
== 238-19 – Exhibit 61 Darden July 2014 email re Term Sheet
== 238-20 – Exhibit 62 Johnson OFAC declaration
== 238-21 – Exhibit 63 deposition of Barry West
== 238-22 – Exhibit 64 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 238-23 – Exhibit 65 deposition of Penon
== 238-24 – Exhibit 66 expert disclosure of Wong
== 238-25 – Exhibit 67 test (by IH? 2014?) showing COP 4 2.1 MB file
== 238-26 – Exhibit 68 deposition of Mazzarino
== 238-27 – Exhibit 69 2013 Vaughn to Darden re 6 cylinder unit
== 238-28 – Exhibit 70 2014 IH internal mails re testing
== 238-29 – Exhibit 71 supplement to IH responses and obj to 1st Rossi interrog
== 242.1 Exhibit A deposition of Darden
== 242.2 Exhibit B deposition for IH by Vaughn
== 242.3 Exhibit C deposition of Mazzarino
== 242.4 Exhibit D deposition of Barry West
== 242.5 Exhibit E deposition of Bass 3.1 MB 
== 242.6 Exhibit F deposition of Vaughn
== 242.7 Exhibit G deposition of Murray
== 242.8 Exhibit H deposition of Penon
== 242.9 Exhibit I  deposition of Dameron
== 242.10 Exhibit J deposition of Johnson
== 242.11 Exhibit K airline record for Johnson from Rossi 7/28/2014
== 242.12 Exhibit L emails Sauer-Bass 9/2014
== 242.13 Exhibit M affidavit of Rossi re Fabiani and Bass
== 242.14 Exhibit N IH resp to 1st Rossi interrogatories
== 243-01 – Exhibit A deposition of Darden excerpts
== 243-02 – Exhibit B deposition for IH by Vaughn excerpts
== 243-03 – Exhibit C  deposition of Mazzarino excerpts
== 243-04 – Exhibit D deposition of West excerpts
== 243-05 – Exhibit E  deposition of Bass excerpts 3.1 MB
== 243-06 – Exhibit F  deposition of Vaughn excerpts
== 243-07 – Exhibit G deposition of Murray excerpts
== 243-08 – Exhibit H deposition of Penon excerpts
== 243-09 – Exhibit I deposition of Dameron excerpts
== 243-10 – Exhibit J header says Johnson dep, actually OFAC draft
== 243-11 – Exhibit K Flight itinerary Rossi and Johnson 7/28/2014
== 243-12 – Exhibit L deposition of Dameron excerpts
== 243-13 – Exhibit M Affidavit of Rossi in support of 3pDef MSJ
== 243-14 – Exhibit N IH responses to 1st Rossi interrog excerpts
== 243-15 – Exhibit O deposition for IPH by Fogelman excerpts
== 245-01 – Exhibit 1 License Agreement 10.5 MB
== 245-02 – Exhibit 2 Term Sheet – AACT Ex. 17, Complaint Ex. B 2.0 MB
== 245-03 – Exhibit 3 Email Rossi/IH drafts of Term Sheet
== 245-04 – Exhibit 4 from deposition of Darden 11.5 MB
== 245-05 – Exhibit 5 from deposition of Vaughn 17.5 MB
== 245-06 – Exhibit 6 from deposition of Rossi 10.5 MB
== 245-07 – Exhibit 7 from deposition of JMP by Rossi 15.2 MB
== 245-08 – Exhibit 8 from deposition of Johnson 34.8 MB
== 245-09 – Exhibit 9 incorporation J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.
== 245-10 – Exhibit 10 from deposition of Johnson 19.3 MB
== 245-11 – Exhibit 11 from deposition of Vaughn
== 245-12 – Exhibit 12 from deposition of Leonardo by Rossi 21 MB
== 245-13 – Exhibit 13 from deposition of Bass 11.1 MB
== 245-14 – Exhibit 14 from deposition of Murray 17.3 MB
== 245-15 – Exhibit 15 plant data and expert disclosure of Murray
== 245-16 – Exhibit 16 FPL data
== 245-17 – Exhibit 17 IH-USQL Agreement Sept. 2013
== 245-18 – Exhibit 18 from deposition of West 15.0 MB
== 245-19 – Exhibit 19 from deposition of Fabiani 19.0 MB
== 245-20 – Exhibit 20 from deposition of Penon 11.2 MB
== 245-21 – Exhibit 21 emails Rossi about customer, was AACT Ex. 16
== 245-22 – Exhibit 22 emails IH, Cassarino, Rossi
== 245-23 – Exhibit 23 OFAC signed by Johnson
== 245-24 – Exhibit 24 email Rossi to Matthey re purchase 3/22/2015
== 245-25 – Exhibit 25 declaration of Darden
== 245-26 – Exhibit 26 Doral sublease: Leonardo to JMP
== 245-27 – Exhibit 27 emails Rossi-IH February 2015
== 245-28 – Exhibit 28 February 2015 emails Rossi-IH
== 245-29 – Exhibit 29 February communications Rossi-Johnson
== 245-30 – Exhibit 30 Bass business card
== 245-31 – Exhibit 31 deposition of Stokes 5.8 MB
== 245-32 – Exhibit 32 Rossi-Johnson emails
== 245-33 – Exhibit 33 Rossi-Bass emails
== 245-34 – Exhibit 34 July 2015 Rossi: Murray “cannot enter.”
== 245-35 – Exhibit 35 Vaughn to Johnson & Rossi about December visit, Johnson reply
== 245-36 – Exhibit 36 Murray questions for Penon, AACT Exhibit 5
== 245-37 – Exhibit 37 Fabiani-IH correspondence, February-April 2016 (AACT Ex. 21) 3.6 MB
== 245-38 – Exhibit 38 Murray to Fabiani April 2016
== 245-39 – Exhibit 39 Murray-Fabiani April-May 2016
== 245-40 – Exhibit 40 Fabiani-Murray April 2016
== 245-41 – Exhibit 41 IH Leonardo and USQL payments
== 245-42 – Exhibit 42 Declaration of Vaughn
== 247-01 – Exhibit 22 Cassarino (AEG) handwritten notes
== 247-02 – Exhibit 30 IH payments to Rossi and AEG
== 247-03 – Exhibit 31 2012 Tax Return Leonardo EID 90-0780933 2.9 MB
== 247-04 – Exhibit 32 2013 Amended return Leonardo EID 90-0780933 12.3 MB
== 247-05 – Exhibit 33 Rossi Personal Tax Return 1040NR 2013
== 248-1_Exhibit_1 Expert disclosure of Wong 2.9 MB
== 248-2_Exhibit_2 deposition of Wong
== 248-3_Exhibit_3 deposition for Leonardo by Rossi
== 248-4_Exhibit_4 deposition of Rossi
== 248-5_Exhibit_5 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 248-6_Exhibit_6 supplemental expert report of Smith 2.1 MB
== 251-01 – Exhibit 23 (0207.23 was blank) Declaration of Vaughn
== 252-01 – Exhibit A Annesser to Pace 12/14/3015
== 252-02 – Exhibit B from Murray deposition
== 252-03 – Exhibit C expert disclosure of Murray
== 252-04 – Exhibit D expert report of Smith
== 252-05 – Exhibit E supplemental expert report of Smith 2.0 MB
== 252-06 – Exhibit F from deposition of Smith
== 253-01 – Exhibit 1  Italian law
== 253-02 – Exhibit 2 from Darden deposition
== 253-03 – Exhibit 3 from deposition for IPH by Fogleman
== 254-1 Exhibit A from deposition for IH by Vaughn
== 254-2 Exhibit B from deposition of Vaughn
== 254-3 Exhibit C from deposition of Vaughn
== 254-4 Exhibit D from deposition of Vaughn
== 254-5 Exhibit E from deposition of Darden
== 254-6 Exhibit F from deposition of Murray
== 256-01 – Exhibit 1 deposition for JMP by Rossi 15.2 MB file
== 256-02 – Exhibit 2 deposition of Darden 11.5 MB file
== 256-03 – Exhibit 3 deposition of Johnson 35.8 MB file
== 256-04 – Exhibit 4 deposition of Bass 11.1 MB file OCR of pp 110-121
== 256-05 – Exhibit 5 deposition of Vaughn 17.5 MB file
== 256-06 – Exhibit 6 deposition of Murray 17.3 MB file
== 256-07 – Exhibit 7 deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino
== 262-01 Exhibit 1 Deposition for Industrial Heat by Vaughn
== 262-02 Exhibit 2 First Amendment to License Agreement
== 262-03 Exhibit 3 Email 2013 Rossi-IH re Validation Test ERV
== 262-04 Exhibit 4 DRV 2013 memo re Validation Test
== 262-05 Exhibit 5 Deposition of Darden
== 262-06 Exhibit 6 Penon Validation Test report
== 262-07 Exhibit 7 Deposition of Vaughn
== 262-08 Exhibit 8 Expert Report of Smith
== 262-09 Exhibit 9  Email Rossi to IH at startup of Doral power delivery
== 262-10 Exhibit 10 Deposition of Murray
== 262-11 Exhibit 11 Deposition of Fogleman
== 264-01 – Exhibit 1 Deposition of Rossi 4.2 MB
== 264-02 – Exhibit 2 Expert Report of Smith
== 264-03 – Exhibit 3 Deposition of Dameron
== 264-04 – Exhibit 4 Deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 264-05 – Exhibit 5 “What is a Megawatt?” from nrc.gov
== 264-06 – Exhibit 6 Expert Disclosure of Murray
== 264-07 – Exhibit 7 Deposition of Wong
== 264-08 – Exhibit 8 Deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 264-09 – Exhibit 9 Deposition of Penon
== 264-10 – Exhibit 10 Deposition of Fabiani
== 264-11 – Exhibit 11 IH-USQL Agreement 2013 3.8 MB
== 264-12 – Exhibit 12 8/2015 letter from Rossi to IH, 12/2015 reply Jones Day for IPH
== 264-13 – Exhibit 13 12/9/015 mail IH-Rossi/JMP re proposed 12/2015 visit, Johnson reply
== 264-14 – Exhibit 14 12/2017 mail Annesser (Rossi) to Pace (IH) re dispute and anticip. breach
== 264-15 – Exhibit 15 Declaration of Vaughn
== 264-17 – Exhibit 17 Rossi JONP posts April 6-18, 2017
== 264-18 – Exhibit 18 Penon Final Report 7.9 MB
== 264-19 – Exhibit 19 Deposition of Murray
== 264-20 – Exhibit 20 Deposition of Darden
== 276-01 – Exhibit 1 excerpt 4/20 discovery hearing transcript re spoliation
== 276-02 – Exhibit 2 deposition of Penon
== 276-03 – Exhibit 3 License Agreement
== 276-04 – Exhibit 4 email Lamacraft to Vaughn
== 276-05 – Exhibit 5 2.7 MB IHHI valuation as of May 13, 2015
== 278-1 Ex. 1 Darden to Rossi 2014-07-10 re term sheet
== 278-2 Ex. 2 Rossi to Darden 2014-07-11 revised sheet
== 278-3 Ex. 3 Rossi to Darden 2014-07-30 re confidentiality
== 278-4 Ex. 4 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 278-5 Ex. 5 Vaughn to Johnson 2014-08-11 draft OFAC declaration
== 278-6 Ex. 6 deposition of Darden
== 278-7 Ex. 7 deposition of Bass
== 279-01 – Exhibit 1 4/23/2013 Rossi to Vaughn re Validation Test
== 279-02 – Exhibit 2 4/24/2013 Rossi to IH re VT
== 279-03 – Exhibit 3 deposition of Rossi
== 279-04 – Exhibit 4 5/5/2013 ERV report on Validation Test
== 279-05 – Exhibit 5 deposition of Penon
== 279-06 – Exhibit 6 Italian regulations
== 279-07 – Exhibit 7 2/18-2/20/2015 Penon – IH re test protocol
== 279-08 – Exhibit 8 deposition of Dameron
== 279-09 – Exhibit 9 deposition of Murray
== 279-10 – Exhibit 10 10 MB License Agreement
== 279-11 – Exhibit 11 3.8 MB Lugano Report
== 279-12 – Exhibit 12 9/10/2012 Rossi to Darden/Vaughn re Hydro Fusion test
== 279-13 – Exhibit 13 9/10/2012 Rossi to Darden/Vaughn re getting rid of “big clicense.”
== 279-14 – Exhibit 14 9/17/2012 Rossi to Darden re Agreement negotiations
== 279-15 – Exhibit 15 0/5/2012 Darden to Rossi re Agreement negotiations
== 283-01 – Exhibit 1 full transcript of Magistrate hearing 2/23/2017
== 283-02 – Exhibit 2 full transcript of Magistrate hearing 3/9/2017
== 283-03 – Exhibit 3 full transcript of Magistrate hearing 4/20/2017
== 283-04 – Exhibit 4 2/23/2016 Darden to Zalli/Uzi Shaya
== 283-05 – Exhibit 5 Levi declaration
== 283-06 – Exhibit 6 deposition of Darden
== 285-01 – Exhibit 1 Feb 2015 emails IH-Penon
== 285-02 – Exhibit 2 deposition for Leonardo Corp by Rossi
== 285-03 – Exhibit 3 deposition of Dameron
== 285-04 – Exhibit 4 deposition of Penon
== 285-05 – Exhibit 5 deposition of Rossi
== 285-06 – Exhibit 6 deposition for JMP by Rossi
== 285-07 – Exhibit 7 photo of steam pipe coming out of reactor container
== 285-08 – Exhibit 8 deposition of Wong
== 285-09 – Exhibit 9 expert disclosure of Murray
== 285-10 – Exhibit 10 expert report of Smith
== 285-11 – Exhibit 11 (14 previously) 12/14/2015 email Annesser to Jones Day
== 285-12 – Exhibit 12 12/9/2015 mail Vaughn to Rossi & Johnson
== 285-13 – Exhibit 13 12/9/2015 mail Johnson to Vaughn
== 285-14 – Exhibit 14 2/22/2016 Jones Day to Johnson re default and security
== 285-15 – Exhibit 15 full transcript 4/20 Magistrate hearing
== 285-16 – Exhibit 16 Order from 4/20 hearing (DE 266)
== 297-01 – Exhibit 1 April 20 Discovery hearing full transcript.
== 297-02 – Exhibit 2 1/11/2016 USPTO correspondence re Rossi patent
== 297-03 – Exhibit 3 Murray queries for Penon re conv. 2/16-17/2016
== 297-04 – Exhibit 4 deposition of Penon
== 297-05 – Exhibit 5 Fabiani Plant data
== 297-06 – Exhibit 6 joint trial stipulation ¶¶ 1-2.
== 299-01 – Exhibit 1 deposition of Fabiani
== 299-02 – Exhibit 2 5/12/2017 declaration of Murray
== 299-03 – Exhibit 3 2/23/2016 email Fabiani to Vaughn
== 299-04 – Exhibit 4 3/22 and 4/1/2016 Murray to Fabiani
== 299-05 – Exhibit 5 3/21/2017 declaration of Vaughn
== 305-01 – Exhibit 1 full transcript of April 20 hearing
== 307-01 – Exhibit A deposition of Darden
== 307-02 – Exhibit B declaration of Uzi Shaya

Documents presented without attestation.

== 0001-1_exhibit_a 2015 Rossi US Patent
== 0001-2_exhibit_b License Agreement
== 0001-3_exhibit_c 1st amendment to License Agreement
== 0001-4_exhibit_d 2nd Amendment to License Agreement
06/29/2016 0021-0_darden_interested_parties
06/30/2016 0022-0_rossi_interested_parties
== 0029-1_exhibit_1 Official critique of Rossi patent
== 0029-2_exhibit_2 Official critique of Rossi patent
== 0029-3_exhibit_3 Six Cylinder Unit photos
== 0029-4_exhibit_4 Rossi blog posts August and September 2015
== 0029-5_exhibit_5 Queries from Murray to Penon
== 0029-6_exhibit_6 list of patent applications
== 0029-7_exhibit_7 Assignment of License from IH to IPH
== 0029-8_exhibit_8 April 2013 Leonardo Certificate
== 0029-9_exhibit_9 Rossi email re Validation Test and “Health Office.”
== 0029-10_exhibit_10 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 … the “independent professors” Ferrara report
== 0029-11_exhibit_11 Agreement with USQL (Fabiani)
== 0029-12_exhibit_12 Rossi email September 10, 2012 re Hydro Fusion
== 0029-13_exhibit_13 Rossi email Mon, Sep 10, 2012 re European licensees
== 0029-14_exhibit_14 Levi et al, Lugano paper
== 0029-15_exhibit_15 Articles of Incorporation, J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.
== 0029-16_exhibit_16 Rossi email July 05, 2014 re renting to JM in Florida
== 0029-17_exhibit_17 Term Sheet for rental of 1 MW unit to JMC
== 0029-18_exhibit_18 JM Products reports of power used
== 0029-19_exhibit_19 Rossi email Jul 13, 2015 refusing access to IH engineer
== 0029-20_exhibit_20 Original was a large pdf, this is a reduced size jpg of the Bass business card
== 0029-21_exhibit_21 Fabiani emails (2016) 2/23, 4/6, and 4/14, replies of Joseph Murray, 4/26, 5/16
== 0029-22_exhibit_22 Cook and Rossi paper
== 0029-23_exhibit_23 Jones Day (IH) letter to Annesser (Rossi) re patent assignment. 2/7/2016
== 0029-24_exhibit_24 Rossi blog posts Aug 18, 2015 – Sep 13, 2015 (duplicates Exhibit 4?)
== 0029-25_exhibit_25 Rossi blog post April 14, 2016, claiming new sales to Customer of 1-year test.
The exhibits 1-25 were repeated in subsequent amended Answers, only new documents are shown here:
== 0030-26_exhibit_26 photos of warehouse and customer area
== 0050-27_exhibit_27 IPH assignment from IH
12/20/2016 0093.0_JMP_interested_parties
12/20/2016 0094.0_USQL_interested_parties
== 0108.1_Patent Exhibit A
== 0108.2_Rossi_email_2-5-2015 Exhibit B
== 0108.3_Rossi_email_3-17-2015 Exhibit C
== 0108.4_Darden_email_4-10-2015 Exhibit D
== 0128.1_Exhibit_1 part of Penon Report?
== 0128.2_Exhibit_2 JMP electrical billing
== 124.29_Fabiani_contract_renewal Exhibit 28
== 124.30_Fabiani_email_re_contract Exhibit 29
== 0129.1_Exhibit_A Chart showing daily utility usage vs Penon and Fabiani
== 0167.2_Exhibit_1 Email from Darden to Sloan, 3/7/2014 (OCR’d version)
== 0167.3_Exhibit_2 Lugano report, scan filed, link here is to original
== 0167.5_Exhibit_4 Declaration of Levi
== 0167.6_Exhibit_5 Email from Darden to Zalli and Uzi
== 0167.7_Exhibit_6 Email Weaver -> Bo Hoisted -> Levi -> Rossi
== 0167.8_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Dewey Weaver
== 0194.04_Exhibit_4 Discussion of “megawatt” from NRC.
== 0194.11_Exhibit_11 3.8 MB file USQL consulting agreement
== 0194.12_Exhibit_12 December 4, 2015 email Pace to Annesser
== 0194.13_Exhibit_13 emails Rossi to IH, August 3, 2015, Vaughn to Rossi and Johnson, December 4, 2015, Pace to Annesser, December 9, 2015, Johnson reply, and Pace to Johnson, February 22, 2016.
== 0194.14_Exhibit_14 email Annesser to Pace, December 14, 2015
== 0194.16_Exhibit_16 unidentified data
== 0197.03_Exhibit_3 7.7 MB file Penon report
== 0215.05_Exhibit_E 2.6 MB file License Agreement
== 0215.06_Exhibit_F 2013 mails Rossi – Vaughn re Validation Test and ERV
== 0226.1_Attachment_1 Darden to Zalli and Uzi, previous 167.6
== 0228.3_Exhibit_C copy of Zalli Jaffe’s biography

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!”

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 et.al.

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”