How to find Rossi v. Darden documents

On LENR Forum, Zeus46 wrote:

Is there a Barry West or Dewey deposition somewhere amongst this document avalanche?

Someone might point out to this fellow that the docket reference here is annotated. On that page, a browser search for Barry West immediately pops up the deposition. It’s about 92 pages out of 235.

Dewey Weaver is mentioned in a number of annotations; the third is the deposition. Unfortunately, it’s just six pages out of what must be more than 250.

I plan to extend and expand the annotations.

I’d go crazy if not for that index. Okay, okay, I’m crazy anyway, spending days creating study documents from the Motions for Summary Judgment. But this is how I learn stuff, by often-boring exposure, I become familiar with it. (Those documents should be ready by the end of this week. The core of the Rossi study is published as a draft, but when I realized there is a good chance that whole thing will need to be rewritten, I stopped work on it and started on the IH Motion.

Rossi summary flim-flam

I am starting study of the Motions for Summary Judgment. I decided to start with the Rossi motion first, so as to avoid some level of bias coming from getting fired up by the IH Motion. At this point I am compiling a study document, a page copied from the motion, in blog format, and intended to create both internal and external links for references. And what I immediately have discovered is that every Rossi exhibit reference I have looked at is incorrect. The motion is a mess. However, what about the intentions? They may not be much better. Continue reading “Rossi summary flim-flam”

RvD: Study of 214:Rossi Motion for Summary Judgment

WORKING DRAFT

This copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be annotated with links to cited documents and other neutral supports. Comments not a part of the document will be in brackets if very brief (such as “[sic]”) or in indented italics. It is intended that this document be neutral, separate pages may be created and linked at the end for opinion and assessments. Please note any errors in Comments at the end of this page.

An error in exhibit naming (see paragraph 2 below) led to all exhibit numbers beyond 2 to be incorrect. Except for that first example (“Exhibit 2A” is linked to Exhibit 3) the links are corrected, but the text is not annotated.

Continue reading “RvD: Study of 214:Rossi Motion for Summary Judgment”

Slogging through the muck

Yesterday, prepping and uploading files for the Docket page, I was concerned I’d develop RSI. I am still annotating the docket and it will probably not be finished today. I need to stop periodically to wash the slime off my face. The deposition of Henry Johnson is particularly fascinating for a glimpse into this side of Planet Rossi. Put that together with the corporate deposition of JMP represented by Andrea Rossi, and everything else: there was only Rossi and Rossi Says, there was no independent customer, JMP was a corporate sock puppet, and …

lying liars lie. Continue reading “Slogging through the muck”

Wabbit! A hidden heat exchanger! That explains everything!

Yesterday, a blizzard of paper hit the docket, the last one (203) at 11:59 PM. We can now see more of the IH case, but my first impression of the IH Motion for Summary Judgment: I’m disappointed. Far too much of it is focused on weaker points, and … I see no reference to the lack of signed agreement to the GPT, as required clearly by the Second Amendment to the Agreement. This was the strongest point available, as far as I can tell. Rather, they focus more on the signature difficulties with the Second Agreement itself, a point which can be defeated by estoppel far more easily.

On the other hand, now we know what Rossi is claiming happened with the heat. Naturally, he lied about it on JONP, but Planet Rossi will easily forgive that. Think of the children with cancer! Nobody’s perfect!

We know it now because of the IH Motion to exclude the testimony of the Rossi expert. This expert explained that a heat exchanger in the second story of the “JMP warehouse” could have dissipated the heat, and that heat was conducted there by piping. How does he know? Rossi told him.

There is also an IH motion to sanction Rossi and third-party defendants Fabiani and Johnson for spoliation of evidence. That heat exchanger? Completely removed by Rossi et al, along with the piping for the reactor connections with the customer area. When the experts visited the Plant, nothing was there but some small pellets, Wabbit droppings, apparently, glowing with a mysterious blue light.

As well, according to IH, Fabiani destroyed all his evidentiary records and emails, and so did Rossi. Who needs this old trash? Besides, hard drive space is expensive.

I have not yet obtained the exhibits supporting the IH claims.

While IH apparently filed a motion to seal, they then filed a redacted version without waiting. The table of contents shows it as 30 pages, perhaps, but the PDF is 39 pages. Altonaga didn’t say anything about the cover, roman numerals, i through vi, and then there were two pages for the signature and statement of service. It’s squeaking, but seems to have stayed within the limit.

Rossi filed a motion to seal  (1) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DAUBERT MOTION TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS

Johnson, Fabiani, and Bass filed a motion to seal  THE COMBINED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT which does not appear to have an attached proposed order…. details, details, so many details. Altonaga might just deny it anyway, from past practice.

There is also a hearing today with IH claims about discovery problems. The notice was amended with additional issues.

 

 

What if we provide a magnifying glass?

About the judge in Rossi v. Darden denying the requested page limits in Motions for Judgment.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

Dewey Weaver, I don’t suppose the font can be made smaller to fit more onto the limited page space…

Devious bastards think alike, we do. The same idea occurred to me, however, I know too much. I could not find the rule immediately, but pleadings must be in a certain form. That covers font size. I did find the federal appellate pleading rules, 14 point minimum for proportional spacing. Or 10.5 characters per inch maximum of a monospaced font. Pica typewriter, basically, 10 cps, for those who remember such ancient contraptions, if I’m correct (“elite” was 12 cps).

Footnotes might be smaller type, do I remember seeing that? I’ll come back and annotate this based on the record. I would want to look at the actual court rules. Do not violate the intention of the rules.

However, there is no limitation on type size for exhibits, and one could present exhibits in forms even more clearly than what has already been done, with various devices to compress and collapse. Look at the existing exhibits, they are highly wasteful. This would require care. Sometimes a rewritten copy might be submitted with a certification of “true copy” and a reference for verification. For example, deposition transcripts could be vastly condensed. More than one document could be presented in a single exhibit, easily.

I don’t think there is a limitation on the number of exhibits, however, or pages in exhibits. So for the Motion for Judgment and statement of facts, brevity will be the soul of wit. Continue reading “What if we provide a magnifying glass?”

And here come the motions for summary judgment

All the parties but one set (Fabiani and USQL) have filed a joint motion to file motions for summary judgment and exhibits under seal, temporarily, for two weeks.

The Parties have been under very tight deadlines in this matter to complete discovery, and are still in the process of resolving some discovery disputes. At the same time, they are working on filing their motions due this week. As such, it would be extremely difficult for the Parties also to meet and confer adequately about the specific items accompanying their motions for summary judgment that should be sealed for the long term. Temporarily sealing the motions and their exhibits for fourteen (14) days would allow the Parties sufficient time (a) to meet and confer in a meaningful manner about the specific items that should remain sealed versus those that would be made publicly available after the expiration of the temporary seal and (b) to prepare and file sealing motions as to the specific items they believe should remain sealed.

While counsel for Third-Party Defendants United States Quantum Leap, LLC and Fulvio Fabiani agreed to a prior version of this motion, counsel for Defendants was unable to obtain their approval prior to filing the current version.

So we may not see these motions and exhibits for two weeks, and some exhibits, possibly, we may not see at all. However, this may move the case forward.

Update and discussion

Summary Judgement. and see also Dispositive motion. For Rossi v. Darden, deadlines were set July 1, 2016, by the Order setting schedule.

February 27, 2017. All discovery, including expert discovery, is completed.
March 21, 2017. All pre-trial motions and Daubert motions (which include motions to strike experts) are filed. Each party is limited to filing one Daubert motion. If all evidentiary issues cannot be addressed in a 20-page memorandum, leave to exceed the page limit will be granted. The parties are reminded that Daubert motions must contain the Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

Daubert motion.

IH has filed a motion, and a second motion to exceed the page limit. Rossi has also filed a motion for an extra day and to exceed the page limit. I expect these to be granted.

There was a joint motion to temporarily seal motions for summary judgment, to facilitate filing. This would be because confidential material may be necessary for the motions, and resolving confidentiality issues may take time, whereas the deadline is today (March 21). As a joint motion that serves to expedite the process, while still ultimately publishing what can be published, with other items remaining sealed by court order, I expect this to be granted, so we will see motions filed by tomorrow. I would interpret that the Rossi request would give everyone an extra day, but I’d also advise a party not to count on that. Always file a request, don’t just assume!

So when Dewey Weaver said this would be a busy week, he wasn’t kidding. Motions for Summary Judgment will lay out the strongest aspects of a case, from a party’s point of view. What has been, until now, only known to the parties because it was disclosed in Discovery, but was not revealed due to disputes, will become public; the joint motion will only delay that two weeks. OMG! I can’t stand it! I wanna know NOW! What do you mean two weeks? That sounds like forever!

Ah, well, it’s not forever.

LENR Forum conversation has become a series of sound bites, where some users fully display their … let’s call it “position.” A place where they sit.

So the peanut gallery here has some comments. (I watched, as a kid, Howdy Doody, it may even have been the first television program I saw.)

Rionrlty wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

This was in response to ele’s post, which I covered the other day, saying much the same:

Methinks you overestimate yourself. Your post belies any semblance of you being a ‘realist’.

1) There is no evidence that ‘they collected about $100 Million’. You made that up – no reality there. Then you say there was ‘no problem with the test’ despite the reality of abundant evidence and testimony that a) there was no agreement to a test, b) there was nothing close to 1MW being produced

2) There is no evidence that ‘$100 Million has disappeared’. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

3) There is no evidence that ‘These other technologies … have almost no commercial value but IH investors have been told they are a gold mine.” You have no evidence that IH told any investors anything about other technologies. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

4) There is no evidence that “The new technology inventors (Piantelli et. al.) have been paid … with shares of IH or other ’empty boxes'”. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

5) There is no evidence that “Darden is paying real money to actors…”. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

The realists here know one thing for sure: Your posts here have little to nothing to do with reality.

There is a saying: ‘a dog would rather be kicked than ignored’. I just kicked you with reality. Perhaps that’s what you were hoping for. You can expect to be ignored in the future.

ele’s fantasies are no less real than any other of the speculations going on here. None of us have enough hard evidence to be jumping the conclusions that most express here. Also I believe whole heartedly that forum posters are being paid, perhaps by both sides, to distribute fud and misdirection hoping to influence the public, and therefore possibly jurors, to there way of thinking. It’s a new world with the proliferation of the internet and sentiments like that are nearly impossible to repress.

On behalf of all those who are getting older, I am profoundly embarrassed. Please, my friends, someone, if you see me losing it like this, tell me; ask me to find someone I trust, and consult with them, and to listen to him or her without attachment.

Sigmoidal was frank and direct and to the point. It’s not whether he is right or wrong, but he wrote about specifics, and they were all points that could be backed with evidence or with a challenge to produce evidence. Rionrlty replies with, first of all, a firm conclusion (“none of us have enough hard evidence”), asserted without evidence or specificity (what conclusions?), followed by a reassertion of a “whole-hearted belief” in a paranoid fantasy, showing the development of such a belief without evidence (or in my experience, even contrary to evidence, and, in this case, evidence that the alleged agenda would be a major waste of money).

(At least it would be a waste of money for the IH side. Rossi, on the other hand, may believe that his future depends on his fans; however, that he might possibly have a motive does not establish that he actually paid anyone, and I’ve seen no evidence that he has. The only evidence, mostly circumstantial, is that he uses sock puppets. We might learn about that from the case. There was a claim from Dewey Weaver that there had been linguistic analysis proving it. Maybe, certainly linguistic markers can be seen in some cases.)

Dewey Weaver wrote:

RiRi – It looks like you’ve earned honorary citizenship on Planet Rossi in record time – comes with a passport and everything! This also comes with an honorary PhD in the discipline of your choice so let R know if you want to move into the sciences overnight as well. Everyday is a new day on Planet Rossi and I can tell that you’re going to be very happy there. Congrats!!

Keep the cluelessness coming – you’re making fast friends in the best of places.

Dewey Weaver continued:

I forgot to mention that an honorary JD is also available as part of the P.R. citizenship package – you’re already demonstrating Planet Rossi acumen, intellect and character – they need some fresh legal brains on top of that. I think that is the way you should go. You can instantly add value to the Planet.

I very much doubt that Dewey Weaver is “paid” to comment on blogs or in fora. That’s not his contract — which we have seen. However, he often is purely sarcastic, without providing new information. There would not be anything here to ask about, if interested in facts. Nobody is going to change their opinions in favor of IH or against Rossi based on these comments, so if he was paid to “influence” public opinion, this is not how he would do it.

This is classic Dewey Weaver banter. I do recommend understanding who Dewey Weaver is, and what he does. He is a gateway to millions of dollars in funding for LENR research, possibly. Or, from the Planet Rossi point of view, he represents the largest danger to the Energy Future of Humanity, the vast conspiracy to suppress Rossi’s Nobel-Prize-Worthy work. This is a real person, using his real name, and it’s possible to talk to him on the phone, and it’s possible to meet him. He is not an internet fantasy. He has actual experience and real knowledge, there is no doubt about that. Set aside the sarcastic banter, I haven’t seen him lie, though he, like all of us, had made some mistakes, created some imprecision in expression. What he wrote here is obviously not “fact,” but opinion or impression.

Rigel wrote:

Hi Dewey, You promised a big week, you should be sharpening your big stick.

It’s shaping up to be a big week in the lawsuit. Monday brought a flurry of paper. The big news is coming: Motions for Judgment. These have the potential to

(1) reveal a much fuller picture of the evidentiary landscape, whereas until now we have largely been extrapolating and inferring. We will get to see some much clearer, I expect.

(2) Possibly resolve aspects of the case, leaving increased possibilities for settlement.

IH Fanboy wrote:

@Dewey, Were you not warned away from here? Told to cool it? You might get your bosses upset, careful.

Concern Trolling. I can predict some of the answer, but first Dewey was not “warned away.” What he wrote, less than two weeks ago:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I’ve been asked to tone it down on the blogs for a little while …

In response to IHFB’s concern trolling, Dewey wrote, yes, what I expected:

IHFB – I am my own boss – super busy these days. I’ll post when the ridiculousness of Planet Rossi earns some much needed love.

There was no court order, the Motion for Sanctions that referred to Dewey Weaver’s comments is still pending, last I looked. Dewey is independent, and not an agent for Industrial Heat, as such. Obviously, he shares interests with IH. They might request that he “tone it down,” but they could not actually enforce this, except by terminating the contract, and what he has done, so far, seems far from adequate to justify that. Besides, some of the other IH people might enjoy Dewey saying what they might think. They would not be responsible for it unless they authorize it.

Dewey sometimes reveals fact. IHFB obviously doesn’t want fact unless it promotes his position. He is not as fanatic as ele or rionrlty, to be sure.

SSC wrote:

Jack Cole wrote:

Given that AR tends to point the finger at others for what he is doing, one might speculate that he has been engaged in harassment, intimidation, and bribery during the course of the suit.

This is a truly absurd reasoning and totally lacking in objectivity. Too often the documents about the process have been interpreted by IH supporters according to their cheer, without any kind of detachment and lucidity. In this way they just throw mud on the protagonists …. a questionable pastime.

I did not go back to read Jack Cole in context, but what was quoted was not “reasoning.” It was a comment on human psychology, and Cole stated it accurately. If a person accuses others of X, one may speculate that the person has done or would do X, given the conditions. Cole did not claim that Rossi had bribed anyone. However, some of his legal behavior looks like harassment. So, as to SSC, clearly identifiable from contribution record as Planet Rossi, pot, kettle, black.

SSC went on:

Apparently the Ecat was an interesting object for Darden as long as he had not to pay for it ….

Following Rossi closely (this is almost verbatim from Rossi), Planet Rossi neglects that IH not only paid $11.5 million to Rossi but also much more, in claimed attempts to make devices according to Rossi’s guidance (and Rossi was quite proud that IH made the Lugano device); total investment was likely $20 million (the original stock offering) or more.

Explosions and mergers are a clear sign of the veracity of the effect, so IH’s problems were those related to control and reproducibility of the phenomenon, but its existence was not questionable.

That is nonsense. A researcher was killed by the explosion of a cold fusion device at SRI, early on, about 1990 or so. That proved? The report was that a recombiner failure was followed by sudden recombination, leading to an explosion. Chemical in nature. When I first saw Rossi demonstrations in 2011 (not in person), I thought, that could make a nice pipe bomb, heating water in a confined space. There is no question that explosions could indicate something unusual. Or not. Scientifically, one would then look more deeply, study the conditions. Explosions happen from sudden reactions that cascade rapidly. A containment failure can look like an explosion, as with some MFMP experiments. If there is substantial pressure, as in any Parkhomov replication, failure may be abrupt and catastrophic. An explosion from LENR would almost certainly be preceded by an easily-observable build-up of heat. Too much heat will destroy the reaction environment. Very difficult to get a nuclear explosion this way. The issue would be energy release, is it more than chemistry and ordinary physics could explain? Just a little chemistry, if triggered rapidly, can create a spectacular explosion!

What is being demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the field and of ordinary conditions encountered in LENR work.

The Darden email showed Darden as “encouraged.” However, Darden also clearly saw the work as preliminary. There was no analysis of failure modes, only a seat-of-the-pants description of appearance. Definitely, the explosions were interesting. But not proof, not yet, not with more work.

Yet when Darden has found advantageous to deny the effect, he has not hesitate to say that it was all a hoax.

This is, again, classic Planet Rossi. Darden has not said that. One might notice that these (trolls?) don’t cite sources. Where did Darden say that? Yet this has been repeated over and over, and supporters believe what they read from other supporters. Where is the beef?

This is what IH has claimed in the lawsuit:

9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million payment. Using the E-Cat technology Leonardo and Rossi directly provided them, Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both.

Rossi’s response to this was to point out the logical error. There are more than three possible conclusions! Of course there are, but it would be crazy for IH to list all of them. For example, IH did not list the possibility that they are lying SOBs, or that they were incompetent boobs who couldn’t boil water with a working stove and clear instructions. And none of the possibilities listed included the idea that the entire technology was a hoax, just the claimed results for a 1 MW plant, and what Rossi had purportedly showed them.

“Measurable excess energy” obviously does not include some level of heat results, but must mean “significant energy” not later found to be artifact or error.

I do not understand how so many people here continue to treat these people as if they were true gentlemen!

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Now, given all this, I list two possibilities:

SSC is a lying troll.

SSC is an incompetent boob.

SSC wrote:

IH Fanboy wrote:

I think Darden felt like he needed to discredit those earlier tests, and the professors involved, to place IH in a stronger position before a jury with respect to the Doral test. And so it looks like he went about using his means and influence to do that.

I agree with you. IH has created the reactor used in Lugano and then has declared that any reactor made from them never worked. IH now has an interest in discrediting the test in order to continue to prove their point.

Of course he agrees. Great minds think alike, birds of a feather flock together.

However, where is evidence that Darden attempted to discredit Lugano? Where did he attempt to discredit the professors? Standard on Planet Rossi: unsubstantiated claims, passed back and forth to create an impression of obvious agreement on fact. Yet there is no fact here. IH never “declared that any reactor from them never worked.” The Lugano test is mentioned in the AACT. It is not claimed there that it did not work, but that the COP was lower than Rossi claims for other devices. And then “later criticism” is mentioned, which is just a fact. That report has been extensively criticized, and has not been defended by the scientists, other than, very poorly, Levi.

“Prove their point?” The possibility of evidence on Lugano being introduced at trial is very, very low. Only if a smoking gun were found in discovery, clear evidence of improper influence by Rossi on the Lugano test, might it, then, come up. I don’t expect that.

SSC wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

He also wrote in the report that Rossi was only there to start it up at the beginning, and came back at the end to assist draw the fuel sample, but we now know Rossi/Fabiani, were there maybe the whole time.

Being present does not mean to intervene. The Ecat belongs to Rossi and he tried to protect it from strangers (they were guests of a company where could have been spies or thieves). In fact, in the Lugano report has been written that: “Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.” (Lugano Report, page 7). As you can read, in this report the authors say that Rossi didn’t interfer, they did not say that he wasn’t there.

The authors of the Lugano report did not lie. Rather, they wrote things that were readily misinterpreted, in favor of creating an impression that the test was more unshakably independent than it actually was. I’d read the Lugano report many times. I assumed, from it, that Rossi was only there at the beginning and at the end. As well, I assume that the Lugano team was there for the whole time. Based on the Darden email, neither of these was the case. Rossi operates in many ways like a magician, through the direction of attention. He distracts. Something led the Lugano team to make some gross errors, some of which were quite visible, even to Darden, with minimal information, but writing after the test had started. They were immediately visible to McKubre, who wrote a very early review in which he pointed out what was missing, and also considered the heavy reliance on IR thermometry without high expertise and full calibrations to be risky. And yet McKubre’s reaction was to trust the Lugano team and to consider the results interesting. And they were interesting, but apparently it cannot be determined from the if there was excess heat, or not, but if there was heat, it was far less than they had estimated.

The Darden email makes it clearer how those mistakes might have been made; the test was basically run by close friends of Rossi, with Rossi there the whole time. Rossi had been expressing nervousness about the test, publically. He didn’t reveal that he was there. He emphasized “independent professors,” as he had done with Levi and the Ferrara test. Many eyebrows went up when the lead author, an allegedly independent professor, was Levi.

And then the Doral test …. the Agreement contemplated a truly independent test for the GPT. Not one with Rossi there constantly, supervising everything in fact, hiding the steam output, in complete control except in name. If the technology was real, Rossi was nevertheless, and repeatedly, clouding the tests, creating more and more opportunity for suspicion. Mats Lewan said it in his book, Rossi wants to look like a fraud. He actually would have a relatively sane business purpose for that.

Some on Planet Rossi have opined that Rossi was doing this to get out of the contract with IH, which would, in fact, match his prior claimed behavior with Hydro Fusion. The basis for that would be that IH was allegedly paying too little, it was worth billions when they had only promised $100 million. Those proposing this approved of it as smart business.

SSC wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

And this thought occurred to me regarding Uzi Sha. Apparently, from googling, he either has some significant finances or knows people with significant finances in Eastern Europe and Russia. So suppose he see’s what IH is doing, and hopes that he (or his contacts) can get a piece of the action in Europe or other places that don’t fall under the IH’s territory or compete directly with IH. He might reasonably want to find ways to get resources to move LENR implementation forward (ultimately for profit). And if so, he might reasonably be in contact with Darden regarding IH’s progress.

This speculation by sigmoidal, while reasonable, is unnecessarily complicated. From the Levi Declaration, Uzi Sha represented himself and another as representing investors in Eastern Europe and Russia who were investigating energy sources for Israel. So Uzi Sha is looking into LENR, and specifically into the Rossi claims. The first contact between Levi and the two was in May, 2016, about a month after the lawsuit was filed, which was the first time that the terms of the Agreement became available. That Industrial Heat was working with Rossi was, however, widely known. So they want to find out more, so they contacted Zalli, an Israeli lawyer who may have been working with IH, that I do not  find clear, and wrote to Darden, asking for information. Darden gave them contact information for Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and Penon — which may be what they had requested. None of this seems unusual or odd to me. It is possible that Darden gave them more information in another email, but if it was purely in an email to Zalli, and if there was an attorney-client relationship, that would be privileged. Sha was on cc, and if so, that may not qualify for privilege. But SSC doesn’t get it:

The territories not covered by IH are covered by Rossi, then what sense would have for Uzi to contact IH?

Both IH and Rossi would sell licenses. There are three reasons to contact IH. First of all, anyone interested in serious investment in LENR would do well to at least talk with IH, it would be crazy not to. Secondly, we don’t know how much Uzi knew, he was looking into possibilities. From what Darden told Zalli and Sha, which was not merely contact information for Rossi, but also for Johnson and Penon and Fabiani, he may have wanted to know more about the test, and Darden referred him to those who were there, for the whole time. However, there is a reference to other emails, and this mail was marked confidential, and Zalli is an attorney. Naturally, Rossi is attempting strenuously to get those mails, and IH resisted, and so far seems to have been successful (but this may still be open).

This was all raised as evidence presented by Rossi that Darden was attempting to harass and threaten and bribe Levi, though Sha, and this is what is obvious: the evidence presented doesn’t show that, at all, it is paranoid, and the Levi Declaration speaks volumes about Levi. It is absolutely not a major coincidence, not surprising, that someone interested in LENR might contact IH. I would, for sure. I think Rothwell has actually visited them. I’m likely to, in the not-distant future.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Careful SSC – you’ll want to manage your energy with all the inbound stress heading Planet Rossi’s way. Be sure to empty your spittoon frequently – that pattern is figured out as well.

I see you noticed that Jack is prescient!

 

Aw, [expletive deleted], loose lips sink ships. At least this looks like loose lips. Quoted above:

Jack Cole wrote:

Given that AR tends to point the finger at others for what he is doing, one might speculate that he has been engaged in harassment, intimidation, and bribery during the course of the suit.

I read this is a claim that there is evidence for what Jack merely speculated about. Rossi filed his Motion for Sanctions based on the thinnest of evidence. That Motion is still pending. ‘Nuff said. I didn’t say anything. Did anyone say anything?

SSC barged ahead:

zorud wrote:

Peter Gluck – what is your explanation why Rossi refuses to share his “invention” publicly or in a way that the mainstream science can follow up and replicate, and AR finally deserves what he is claimin to be awarded for (Nobel prize)?

Would you personally behave exactly like him if you would have found out or “invented” what he claims to have????

Why he should give away the discovery of the century? You would share a winning lottery ticket?

SSC follows the same black and white thinking as Rossi. First of all, Zorud didn’t really state it clearly. There are two aspects to the Rossi claims. First of all, Rossi does apparently believe that he should be considered for the Nobel Prize and that this is realistic, but the Nobel Prize is for science, which means public knowledge, not some secret. Secondly, the lottery ticket will not win if it is not open for inspection. The holder of the ticket can swear up and down that it’s the winning combination, but it will require an independent examination to actually win. Don’t wait too long! Rossi is not going to be able to bring his technology to market without major investment, and he is not going to gain that investment without truly independent testing, fully trusted by the investor, is allowed.

Rossi actually did win the lottery, that IH agreed to invest in his technology was very much abnormal. With the Hydro Fusion letter, IH knew that Rossi could not be trusted, but they decided to invest anyway. And the result? Rossi took their money and spat in their face, suing them and accusing them of fraud. When we are paranoid, it will often lead us to treat others very badly. Whether we have a real technology or not.

SSC wrote:

Bob wrote:

Everyone was led to believe, even the final report was worded as such, that Rossi was not involved in the tests except at the very beginning and end. It turns out the he conducted the entire test!

Seriously? And where is it written that he conducted the entire test? Just because Darden said that Rossi was present it does not mean that he intervened. This seems the classic “word of mouth”, where at each step the story is magnified ….

I’m not getting that SSC is familiar with the Lugano Report. There were five basic phases:

  1. Setup and running the dummy
  2. Setup and fuel the test reactor and start it up.
  3. Watch paint dry.
  4. Shut down the test reactor.
  5. Remove fuel for analysis.

From the Lugano report, Rossi was there for 1, 2, 4, and 5. What was there to do in phase 3? Effectively, Rossi ran the entire test, took every critical action. (There was a point where someone (who?) decided to increase the input power in the middle. I had assumed that they contacted Rossi and asked him if it was acceptable. But he was actually there, and might even have suggested it. Rossi’s presence could assert itself in many ways. This was not how to run an independent test, it was already pretty clear and got clearer with that Darden mail.

(Watching paint dry is McKubre’s term for the excitement of watching LENR, normally.)

SSC went on and on with evidence-free potshots, it becomes tedious.

ele wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I am my own boss – super busy these days.

Oh Ho ! Darden has fired you and you are looking for a new Job ?

I suspect, though I am not entirely convinced, that ele is Rossi, and this is a comment that Rossi might make, with his poor English and business comprehension. Dewey was never an employee of IH or Darden. He is a contractor, independent, not some flunky. And my guess is that he’s quite busy creating value for IH, finding worthwhile projects to fund. But I don’t know, and he does have other businesses.

ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

Your posts here have little to nothing to do with reality.

Why are you so angry ? Maybe I have touched a nerve ?

Trolls exist to make people angry. And they often will accuse those, who show disgust for what they do, of emotional over-reaction. It’s SOP.

If you really are not connected with IH why to react so bitterly ?

On Planet Rossi, anyone who does not fawn over Rossi must be in cahoots with IH.

Mine are fantasies ? Not really.

ele does not begin with what a sober participant in discussions would do, establish what he’s talking about. What alleged fantasy? I think there were many, but this would probably be what he is now going to show evidence for.

ele wrote:

1) First of all they collected about 100 M$ saying to their investors that they bought the IP of Rossi and showing them the 1MW plant during the one year test. No problem with the test was risen about the test and even about Lugano or any other test in this phase.

2) Seems that 100 M$ has disappeared (no trace in documents) and so IH decided not to pay Rossi (losing the IP) and IH told the investors thet it has substituted the Rossi technology with others.

What’s true here? They did say to potential investors and investors that they had bought the Rossi IP. That is simple fact. They showed a few investors and possible investors the Doral plant. That’s documented. However, what did they tell these investors? By Doral, their narrative is that they knew that their own reactors did not work. When ele writes that “they collected,” he’s not precise. Who collected? He is claiming that $100 million disappeared, but where did it appear in the first place? ele’s narration is that Darden collected plenty of money, enough to pay Rossi, but hid it somewhere, or lost it (what, gambling on the emdrive? What?) and that is why he’s not paying Rossi. Wouldn’t that piss off his investors, if they invested because of Rossi?

So, back to ele’s response to sigmoidal:

For example the fact that Darden collected money (even in China) is quite notorious:

“Darden collected money” loses the fact that money was invested in companies, not handed to Darden. Darden did collect money, in 2013. In 2012, apparently Darden and Mazzarino paid $1.5 million of their own money either directly to Rossi or into Industrial Heat to secure the Agreement, and then, to pay the $10 million, they created a stock offering, this is public record, and initially raised $11.5 million. Darden and Mazzarino and Vaughn own more than a controlling interest … in what? Not in IH! In IHHI! There are many investors involved, they are all listed on the IHHI company page run by the British government. All the IH investors were bought out by IHHI, in return for stock, apparently. But then more money went, promptly, into IHHI.

There is no sign of Chinese investment in IH or IHHI. If Darden operates with China as he does with Cherokee Partners, a Chinese company would be started. Evidence of this would have been disclosed in Discovery, so we may see some of it.

e.g. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…-center-in-tianjin-china/

The 2014 news report on which that E-Cat World story was based is dead; however it can be read on the Wayback Machine. There is nothing in that story about investment in IH or money being given to Darden. If anything, it might be the other way around. The story, in Chinese, can be read with Google Translate. There are few details, this was typical ECW spin-out.

I suspect that Chinese money tends to be smart money. If they wanted to put a lot of money into LENR — and they might — it would go into a company they can control, and that would be right up Darden’s alley, it’s what he does. This story does not at all establish what ele is claiming.

And also from financial times…… https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20…in-a-cold-fusion-company/

ROTFL!!! Here on this blog: Financial Times slapdash knee-jerk reaction passes for journalism

The Financial Times article requires registration. ele quotes:

……in May 2015, Neil Woodford invested £32m of his clients’ money in a company working on cold fusion. ……

Interesting isen’t it ?

Woodford invested $50 million (denominated in U.S. dollars) in “a company.” What company? IH? No. IHHI, which was formed in England. IHHI bought all the stock in IH, apparently for stock in IHHI. IHHI issued $50 million in preferred stock which went to Woodford. Preferred stock was about $45 per share, whereas ordinary stock was cheap. However, preferred stock has no more voting rights than ordinary, if I’m correct. So Darden et al have control of IHHI, but Woodford would not take it kindly if they tried to cheat him, I’d suspect. Pissing off people who have the kind of financial clout that Woodford had would not be a formula for living a happy life.

The initial stock offering was $20 million total. While I’ve seen no documentation showing that it was fully subscribed, I suspect that it was. And that money was spent. It did not “disappear.” People who run companies like that where money disappears can easily end up in jail, why ruin a good day with garbage like that? Darden seems to be doing quite well, before LENR came along.

IHHI has financial reports. Much of the $50 million is left, but they intend to spend it all and to need more, and they believe it is available. What came out in the discovery process that we got a glimpse of is that Woodford had committed an additional $150 million if needed.

But this was not in IH and was out of the reach of Rossi. IH probably has few assets other than the Rossi license, which is worth what?

ele is a lying troll, we can see it here.

People who are merely mistaken don’t behave like this.

This is really funny: ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

This is proof positive that Darden is morally ghastly, a coward and deceiver. (But only on Planet Rossi)

Oh “Planet Rossi” Who is the guy that invented it ? NO….. It can’t be YOU….. he he he he……

On the one hand, Dewey Weaver coined the term. However it caught on and many use it. On the other hand, who writes “he he he he” commonly?

Here, ele completely ignores the actual issue, the claims that Darden avoided deposition, when, apparently, he was deposed immediately after the depositions of Fogelman, claimed by Rossi and Planet Rossi to be proof that Darden was avoiding deposition.

IH Fanboy wrote: (responding to the sigmoidal comment)

While we are all speculating, I’ll speculate that Darden ducked and dodged in his personal deposition as he was not “speaking” for any of the entities.

Actually, sigmoidal was not speculating. However, one who is speaking for the entities would not be guilty of perjury if the company had misled him or her, because the representative is not necessarily speaking for themselves, but as informed. If such actually knew and said that they did not know, that would be perjury. However, if Darden were to say “I don’t know,” and actually knew — and this can often be shown — that would be perjury and he could go to jail. It is much easier to “duck and dodge” as a 30(b)(6) deponent, but it can harm the company at trial. Darden is a personal defendant as well as being an officer of the companies. He is definitely in the hot seat in a deposition in this case. He would, I’m sure, be very careful. Sitting in a deposition, facing lawyers who are not your friends, is no time to get chatty.

sigmoidal answered brilliantly.

About the IH appeal from the Magistrate’s decision about the DRV (Dewey Weaver) privilege issue, (which has now been scheduled for hearing)

IH Fanboy wrote,

Dewey says he is his own boss, so not sure how IH’s argument that he is an agent holds up. Which means his emails ought not to be privileged. Maybe Dewey should have heeded IH’s advice and stayed clear of here.

A breath of fresh air compared with ele. However, still clueless. Perhaps IHFB should read the argument IH has presented and the exhibits. The Magistrate was apparently confused by this “agent” issue, because, as pointed out, there was a conflict in the evidence on that. However, this was actually moot, because the evidence is that Dewey had his own agreements with the attorneys in question. This, then, did not depend on agency.

After it was revealed that the Judge had denied the motion to seal,

Dewey Weaver wrote:

This Judge is tough! Going to be some good stuff in the exhibits tomorrow night.

Maybe. Actually, the Judge’s Order was procedural, and I’m not sure I agree with it. The Seal requested was temporary, to get the process moving. She will now, if the procedure she reminded them of is used, need to review, in short order, many motions to seal. Maybe her way is better, I don’t know. She is the judge, which means she gets to decide, and I doubt that anyone will appeal this.

So if I read this and the parties’ intentions correctly, we will see a pile of motions to seal tomorrow, not the Motions for Summary Judgment, but they will exist as clerk-sealed until she rules on each one. However, a party might decide to file without requesting seal.

Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!

That’s a Planet Rossi trope. Recent Planet Rossi comments have explained that internet discussions are being warped by attacks against Rossi by “paid” advocates for IH. When it is pointed out that a for-profit venture capital company, operating mostly with high privacy, would not pay for this, because they gain nothing from Rossi looking like he always apparently wanted to look (like a con artist or fake), it is then asserted that the purpose of this is to influence the jury in Rossi v. Darden.

Mostly this is being advocated by people with no deep knowledge of the jury system and how it works. A surprising possible exception is rionrlty, an American, using his real name, with apparent experience as a real estate broker, now retired. With an assumed long career, one might think he’d have more experience than to assert what he’s asserting. I will here examine what is being said about the jury selection process and rules, and provide sourced information about this.

Bottom line, not only is it unlawful to attempt to influence the jury selection process or to present “information” to the jurors outside of the court process, but it is also unlawful for the jurors, who are under oath, to lie about their experience and knowledge of the case or case issues, and they will be asked. It is also unlawful for them to violate the rules, which include any attempt to obtain outside information about the parties or issues, that they don’t already have and admitted having. It is not automatic that a juror would be excused if they knew something about the case and the parties; but it is a factor that the judge and attorneys would consider.

In the end, the goal of the Judge will be that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) agree that the jury, as selected and having been questioned, under oath, about all this, have been fairly selected and will be fair and impartial. Continue reading “Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!”

What happened with the video depositions?

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions rest on a legal fiction, taken to a ridiculous extreme, the personhood of a corporation. They are an invitation to create hearsay evidence, and an opportunity to make mistakes that cannot be corrected. Essentially the 30(b)(6) deponent is making official statements for the corporation, whereas most official corporate statements in law and practice are made by corporate officers, generally in writing, to make it clear that this is a corporate statement, not an individual one.

It’s been pointed out in legal advice sources that it may be advisable to designate a 30(b)(6) representative without direct knowledge, because the opposing attorney may fish with questions not on the list of issues, or seeking unspecified detail that might not be included in a briefing. I really can’t see why these depositions are even allowed, compared to interrogatories, which also create legally binding testimony. Corporations act through board approval or authorization, which is, in theory, deliberated. It is in that process that a corporation becomes a person.

The reason for depositions rather than interrogatories is so that a jury could, if necessary, view the witness to judge probity, (affect matters), but this is very strange in a 30(b)(6) deposition, where it could be very common that a witness will decline to answer, which, then, to some, may look evasive, or “slimy,” as as IH Fanboy called some answers — which seem proper to me in context — on LENR Forum.

It appears that the Rossi questions and conduct in the depositions was designed to solicit that kind of response, then to attack the corporation based on lack of response to questions that have already been answered by someone with much more direct knowledge, on the basis of failure to prepare. We discuss. Continue reading “What happened with the video depositions?”

Everybody knows

I’m waiting for the results of today’s Rossi v. Darden hearing, and was struck by events on LENR Forum. So how to introduce this, and the line came to me, Everybody knows … that’s how it goes.

For the full lyrics.

Is that a depressing song? Well, no, because this is where the future begins: where we are. What “everybody knows” is not the future, it is the past, and Cohen mentions this. So here we go, the immediate past on LENR Forum. Continue reading “Everybody knows”

Discussion of how crazy can it get

How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)

One consequence of this filing is that Dewey Weaver has been silenced — or at least inhibited for a time. It was always a wonder that he disclosed so much.

There is discussion on LENR forum that I review below. Continue reading “Discussion of how crazy can it get”

How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)

Pretty crazy, apparently.

Today, Rossi filed a Motion for Sanctions, claiming witness tampering.

(For the complete list of Motion documents, see Rossi v. Darden docket and case files entries for 3/19/2017)

Defendants, through their agents, are tampering with witnesses and/or otherwise harassing individuals in abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff, Dr. Andrea Rossi, may currently be under consideration by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for a Nobel Prize related to his E-Cat technology – the same technology that is the subject matter of the present lawsuit. Defendants in this case have known this fact for some time, even sharing this information with their investors/potential investors (See Ex. 1). Continue reading “How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)”

Rossi v. Darden case activity

Coverage of case activity including filing of motion for seal for a motion for sanctions filed by Rossi, the motion was rejected and the motion for sanctions was struck, by the Judge, but was then refiled, see How crazy can it get? This page covers what is below and more, before the refiling.

03/08/2017 0159.0_Rossi_Disc_hearing_notice March 9, re 02/23/2017 ruling and IH objections
03/08/2017 0160.0_Rossi_Motion_to_seal Motion for Sanctions (DE 108? or new Motion?)
== 0160.1_Proposed_order  Continue reading “Rossi v. Darden case activity”

Conversations: Sam

Sam has posted ten comments on this blog. One today happens to bring up some issues that I think are worthy of a post, so I’ll be quoting it here and commenting in indented italics as in the Conversations series. Also, Bob responded to him, I’ll quote that also. Welcome, Sam, you have the floor.


Hi Abd
I think Fan boy gives some balance to the Ecat debate on Lenr Forum.
The same as Jed Rothwell can do on Ecat world.
If the blogs are one sided they are not as interesting to read.
Maybe we should pick teams and have the great Ecat debate.
Actually I think it would be better if they forgot about the Doral test and start fresh with the Quark X.
Regards
Sam

Let’s deconstruct this:

Continue reading “Conversations: Sam”

The boiling point of water

Well-established, eh? There are complexities, some of which I knew, some not. Thanks to Paradigmnoia, who is almost always informed and informative, if not always transparent at first. He’s kind of an anti-Abd, the kind which, when combined with an Abd, can generate pure energy.

He pointed to The Myth of the Boiling Point, by Hasok Chang of the University of Cambridge. I highly recommend this article for the history of science and as an example of a scientific approach where ideas are tested and confirmed (or rejected) by experiment, instead of by just shoving words around.

And then I look at how all this applies to Rossi’s work, and turn to an explanation of what this blog is, what the “cold fusion community” is, and how we will transform the scientific mainstream, powerfully and effectively. Or, at least, take the first steps in that direction. Continue reading “The boiling point of water”

LENR+ is never having to apologize

Once upon a time, IH Fanboy, while clearly a Rossi supporter, was more or less coherent, at least sometimes, as I recall. That’s gone out the window. Gross errors are made but never admitted or directly confronted. If Jed, say, points out a fact that doesn’t fit the IHFB story, IHFB then changes the subject to something else where maybe, he thinks, he might “win.”

At this point he is more or less reduced to “You don’t know everything” and “You have no proof that,” when, in fact, anyone sane recognizes that little is proven, but much is plausible and even probable.

Continue reading “LENR+ is never having to apologize”

So who’s in the Dominican Republic?

Since I last commented on case documents, we have:

02/20/2017 0144.0_Rossi_hearing_notice amended 2/23
02/21/2017 0145.0_Discovery_Order misc. including Rossi screen names order
02/21/2017 0146.0_Discovery_Order various including Boeing deposition
02/21/2017 Discovery Hearing (no document)
PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Discovery Hearing held on 2/21/2017. Total time in court: 15 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, D. Porpoise Evans, Christopher Perre (Digital 10:50:40) (cg1)
02/21/2017 0148.0_Discovery_Order re deposition in Dominican Republic, site inspection
02/21/2017 0149.0_USQL_Answer (Fabiani)
02/21/2017 0150.0_IH_Hearing_Notice re bank subpoenas, Rossi/JMP non-response
02/21/2017 0151.0_Rossi_Memo_re_138 Mazzarino privilege claim
02/23/2017 0152.0_Discovery_Order_re_privilege (Hearing 2/23).
02/23/2017 0153.0_Rossi_memo_opposing_143 re Deep River Ventures privilege
02/23/2017 0154.0 Discovery Hearing (no document)
02/23/2017 0155.0 Discovery Transcript (no document yet)
02/23/2017 0156.0 Discovery Transcript (no document yet)
02/24/2017 0157.0_IH_reply_to_151 (Rossi opposition to Mazzarino privilege claim)
03/02/2017 0158.0_ IH_reply_to_153 Rossi opposition to DRV (Dewey Weaver) privilege claim.
03/02/2017  0158.1_Dewey_Weaver_declaration (on behalf of DRV)

Stuff is Happening.

145 is mostly routine Magistrate business. This Order came out of the hearing February 7, and includes deadlines that already expired. There are warnings of possible sanctions. I would not conclude much from that. These warnings have been issued on both sides.

However, as to the interests of the peanut gallery,

Plaintiffs shall serve their supplemental interrogatory answers to Defendant, John Vaughn’s First Set of Interrogatories by February 10, 2017. Such responses shall include all screen names or aliases Plaintiff Rossi uses to post information on the lnternet. To the extent Plaintiff Rossi does not use screen names or aliases to post information on the lnternet, he must issue a response verifying the same.

D.E. 148 has this:

 … the defendant is permitted to question the witness set for deposition in this matter on February 22, 2017, in the Dominican Republic. The plaintiff shall provide the defendant with the name of the attorney for the witness who is scheduled for deposition in the Dominican Republic. 

Some of the orders coming from the Magistrate seem to reflect an inability of the lawyers to agree on relatively simple things. The indication here would be that the witness is someone whom Rossi might not want to have deposed. And an obvious guess is Penon, who was missing, IH had been unable to serve him.

Also in D.E. 148:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that if the defendant’s expert is available after the conclusion of the deposition in this matter taking place today locally, the site inspection shall occur today after the conclusion of that local deposition. If the defendant’s expert is not available to inspect the site today after the conclusion of the local deposition in this matter, unless the parties agree otherwise, the site inspection shall occur on March 2, 2017, at 9:00 AM.

This is obviously to be an inspection of the Doral site.

D.E. 149 is the USQL (Fabiani) Answer and Affirmative Defenses. While I saw nothing of much note in this (being mostly unexplained denial, which is legally sufficient), I intend to prepare a Merge document with this as with the others, to show the Answers in context of the Claims being answered. It is otherwise unintelligible. One point:

150. Third-Party Defendants state that the Technical Consulting Agreement speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 150 to the extent that they are inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement. Third-Party Defendants also deny that the Agreement was properly renewed.

From what we have seen, this claim will likely be estopped because he did accept payments pursuant to the Agreement.

This is interesting, an Affirmative Defense:

The Technical Consulting Agreement is sufficiently ambiguous that upon a determination of the intent of the parties, no breach by the Third-Party Defendants has occurred. The intent of the parties was for Mr. Fabiani to assist Dr. Rossi in his work on the Ecat technology. Mr. Fabiani’s duties and obligations to provide data were of minor consequence to the Third-Party Plaintiff and Mr. Fabiani did in fact provide data to the Third-Party Plaintiff for the entire term of the working relationship. Any data not provided was excused by the failure to pay all sums due to the Third-Party Defendants.

This is at a level of contradiction with what Rossi has commonly claimed, that IH had “two men” on site to report to them what was happening, one being Fabiani (the other would be Barry West). However, it seems fairly clear that the primary duties of both of them was to assist Rossi. At the end, it appears from emails shown that Fabiani stopped talking to IH, when Murray offered to pay him the final payment in return for the data. And then this contradicts the idea that the agreement was not renewed.

(A party may assert contradictory defenses.)

These contradictions appear in the rest of the Affirmative Defenses. Fabiani’s points are at least arguable.

D.E. 150 is of some interest. These are additional issues to be addressed at the upcoming Hearing, time permitting:

Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., on (1) Plaintiffs’ and ThirdParty Defendants’ J.M. Products Inc.’s objections to Defendants’ subpoenas to Bank of America, N.A., BankUnited, Inc., and TD Bank, N.A.; (2) Plaintiffs’ violation of the Protective Order entered by this Court on October 14, 2016; and (3) Plaintiff Andrea Rossi’s failure to respond to Industrial Heat and IPH International B.V’s Third Request for Production.

(See D.E. 144 for Rossi business at that hearing, which was amended from D.E. 135). The salient business here is IH claim of attorney-client privilege with regard to certain requests for production and an IH motion for a protective order, which was rejected because not according to procedure, then there are memoranda re law on this, from IH and from Rossi.

D.E. 151 is a Rossi argument against a privilege claim for Mazzarino.

Without detailed study, on these privilege claims, I have a rough impression of the IH case being stronger, but …. not enough to really call this as to every document. Rossi is fishing, looking for admissions that they never intended to pay him, i.e., that he was defrauded. So far, his searches have come up with what pulls the rug out from under some of his arguments: Woodford had committed an additional $150 million if needed, so if it were prudent and necessary, IH could have paid the $89 million. However, that was obviously contingent on Rossi performance on his part of the Agreement.

D.E. 152 is an Order affirming privilege for two emails (one from Darden to a “Mr. Zalli”) and adjudging no privilege for one (involving Zalli and “Mr. Uzi”).

D.E. 153 is a Rossi argument against the Dewey Weaver privilege claim.

D.E. 154-156 are discovery hearing business. Transcripts will be available someday before the end of time. (Actually, 5/24/2017).

D.E. 157 is the IH reply to 151. My immediate reaction: yeah, I thought so. Basic standard; while there may be exceptions, if one communicates with an attorney expecting confidentiality due to common interest with the client, it is probably covered under attorney-client privilege. I’m not, at this point, reading up on the case law.

D.E. 158 is the IH reply to 153. The legal principles appear clear (and contrary to Rossi claims). However, bottom line, IH agrees that if there is an issue about privilege for a document, it is to be submitted to the Magistrate for in camera (private) review. IH is arguing against a wholesale requirement that all documents be provided to Rossi directly. It is possible that the Magistrate, seeing the documents, may rule that some are to be provided as being “business” related, as distinct from privileged legal consultation. However, IH then has a choice to make: accept this or appeal. The issue would be appealable, my opinion. So far, it looks like IH simply does what the court orders; however, defending attorney-client privilege is a major concern of attorneys!

D.E. 158.1 is a Dewey Weaver attestation under oath (penalty of perjury) that he engaged the legal firm in question, even if it appears that the agreement was never properly signed. Standard. This was all really dumb argument from Annesser. Technically possible, but almost certainly a time-waster. Someone wants to waste time. Who would that be?


In comments below, there were speculations:

Bob says (February 22, 2017 at 11:34 am):

P.S.
If I were a betting man, I would bet the “secret” expert located in the Dominican Republic is none other than Penon. But then I would not bet much either! This drama has some interesting twists and turns in it.

Abd ulRahman Lomax says (February 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm):

Yeah, strange, isn’t it, “Penon” also popped into my mind.

Dewey Weaver played with this on LENR Forum. Shane had asked, February 23, 1:22 am

Dewey,
Is the “site inspection” to occur in the Dominican Republic, or Doral? ECW has it as the DR, and after re-reading that section, it sure sounds like it could be…or it could be poor wording. If so, and it is the DR, could you give a hint as to what the heck took place there? And while you are at it…who is this DR witness IH is deposing?

OMG. Shane isn’t reading our blog! WTF?

ECW badly mangled this interpretation of DE 148, and apparently the dense fog there confused Shane. Alternate interpretations of text are common; and this is a reason why one will sanely attempt to understand every word. Yes, errors happen; however, the Order Frank interpreted contained multiple clues that indicated that there were two separate and distinct depositions, one in the DR, and one “locally,” with IH’s expert witness. The DR deposition was “set for February 22,” whereas the Order was February 21, and refers to the expert deposition as “today.” The alternate reading doesn’t work, and was so deviant from the obvious intention or the Order that it did not even occur to me as a possibility. There is only one major “site” in the case that could possibly be inspected, and that might take a court order to allow. Doral.

In any case, Shane’s question still stood, who was the DR deponent?

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Shane – the site inspection is slated for Doral. Some have correctly deduced the DR depo witness (three initials, first initial A and last initial d). You can study the order and find more details – the Court had to get involved in an interesting way.

OMG, Dewey Weaver reads this blog!

Shane wrote:

Thanks. So the site inspection is in Doral. As to identifying the DR witness with the riddle: “3 initials, first A, and last d”, which does not add up to 3, and then give me my homework to go back to the documents to piece together, sorry, I just am not in the mood to do that. I already spend too much time going over this stuff. Instead, how about you be clear this once?

Life is a riddle, a puzzle, and it is particularly puzzling when we make assumptions about the clues. Dewey did not state that the clue would identify the witness. He wrote that “Some have correctly deduced …”

“Initials” was possibly misleading, but that would not obstruct decoding the message, because the task the clue gives doesn’t depend on the “initials” merely being letters. What are the three letters? The first is A, the last is d. Let me think…. what could that be. If the first part of that sentence is understood, one would be looking for … the name of someone who “deduced” the identity. In fact, it wasn’t a deduction, either, but this is the task of life, again: to see through a forest of noise at something that, then, is reality. Dewey was playing, and, contrary to common Planet Rossi belief, he is not paid as Minister of Propaganda. He is a human being, and does have, in fact, quite an interesting job that leads him to be highly informed on Rossi v. Darden and quite a few other sometimes-murky topics.

I maintain multiple interpretations as far as possible. As we will see, there are those who believe that whatever comes from Dewey is unreliable, but … let’s put it this way: these people are unreliable, themselves.

I’ve been studying Dewey’s comments since NCKhawk, and, where independent evidence has appeared, he has not been misleading, even if he has erred or misstated something on occasion. In this case, if the deponent was not Penon, he is being directly misleading, in a matter that could easily become public. Under the Ministry of Disinformation theory, that would violate MOD Manual section 12.57: Never make a verifiably false public statement. Maintain, at all times, plausible deniability. When Rossi says, for example, that he’s in North Carolina, he probably is, until and unless there is some specific evidence contradicting that.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Shane D – I was trying to let you know that Abd got it right on the DR depo.

Thanks, Dewey. Of course I got it right. What I wrote actually could not possibly have been wrong, I have absolute certainty. I did not write “It was Penon!” I wrote that the name popped into my mind. And it did. Q.E.D. This points up something: how to be a careful witness, how to distinguish between inference and intuition and the like, and fact. Basic ontology. Dewey might have written, Abd’s intuition was right. (and Bob’s!) Intuition operates this way. It doesn’t need “reasons.” It doesn’t need to be certain. Intuition, my understanding, is based on the operation of a vast association engine, with most “processing” occurring outside of consciousness. Of course, having thought of Penon, I could then find “reasons” to support the idea, but I didn’t bother.

More mishegas continued on LENR Forum, the usual mixture of cogency and mind-boggling trolling or idiocy. Meanwhile, on ECW,

Bob wrote: (Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:54 AM)

The inspection was to be at the Doral facility using an expert hired by IH. (The identity has not been revealed as far as I know.) This did not take place yesterday and is now scheduled for March 2.

The witness who has been deposed in the Dominican Republic is Penon and the court ordered deposition was filed by IH, not Rossi.

(The above two items per post from Dewey Weaver)

Shane D. provided a clear synopsis of the new documents at :

[Link to LENR Forum]

[and then he quoted Shane].

Here, Bob wrote: (2017/02/24 at 1:21 am)

today, I was going to make a post about the latest court documents and received a message stating I had been banned from ECW when attempting to save the post. I did not receive any notification from Mr. Ackland nor did I receive any warning about any transgressions I might have committed.

I sent him a private email asking if there had been some issue and he responded later in the day stating “Yes, I took that action based on your posting history on E-Cat World. ” It continued stating that E-Cat World was not a place for skeptics and that “it seems you are firmly convinced that the E-Cat is simply fake”.

Bob’s Discus profile seems to not exist now. For comparison, here is the NCKhawk profile. It is unclear to me if an administrator can delete a Discus profile. My guess is not. However if a user is banned, I’m speculating that the profile becomes disconnected from the posts. I don’t know if NCKhawk is actually banned. In any case, Acland’s reported email comment to Bob indicates a banning of someone for their assumed mental state, rather than for offensive posts, and there are many users on ECW with the mental state ascribed here to Bob. But maybe he is banning all of them. Definitely, skeptical comment seems sparse there.

These are the ECW “commenting guidelines.” It does not appear that Bob violated the guidelines, and the normal, routine sanction for violations would be deletion of offending posts. “Belief status” is not given as a standard, though it says that

E-Cat World is a site that takes LENR seriously, and accepts it as a valid field of research, and a potentially useful energy source. ECW is not a venue where LENR/cold fusion skeptics are given free rein, or a place to debate whether LENR/cold fusion is real. Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon, an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.

However, under

… the following types of comments are subject to moderation:

We find:

Comments that state openly or by implication that LENR/cold fusion/E-Cat is a fraud or hoax

The lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden, is rife with evidence that particular events involving the E-cat involve fraud. What Bob did that apparently triggered the ban was to quote what had been written elsewhere about events in the case. There was no direct implication of fraud (if Bob had intended such, he’d have pointed to much more specific evidence.)

So … I think that Frank overreacted, and perhaps he’ll rescind the ban and apologize. It’s up to him, of course, it’s his blog. Balancing that freedom is the fact that anyone else may comment on what he does, on his blog if he permits it, or elsewhere whether or not he permits it.

Ordinarily, banning people while not deleting allegedly offensive comments or at least warning them (if, for example, the comments have received a response so that deletion would cause harm to context) would be offensive for a moderator. The biggest problem, for me, as a writer, is, however, (1) deleting comments without opportunity for the author to recover what was written, and (2) banning which prevents authors from correcting errors, or responding to critique, without any necessity and notice. This is rude and inconsiderate.


There was a bit more on ECW of interest.

wpj US_Citizen71 Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:06 AM

DW and ABD say that it’s Penon that is there.

Strange how it has gone from “Rossi says” to “Weaver says”. He also say that there was no site inspection.

Mike Rion wpj Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:36 PM

Yeah, it seems most of the posters on LENR Forum are converts to the new religion called Dewey Weaver, who is nothing more or less than a paid shill of IH.

Typical blogviation. First of all, I did not “say that it’s Penon.” I merely wrote that the name occurred to me, as I imagine it might occur to anyone with extensive knowledge of the case. But I don’t know the fact. Dewey, as an IH insider, might actually know. Rossi, of course, would also know, but would not reveal this, very likely, and I suspect that the only reason we know about the DR deposition and the site inspection is that Rossi would not voluntarily agree to these.

From the name and behavior, I suspect ECW Mike Rion is LENR-Forum Rionrlty. Rion appeared on ECW April 10, 2016, shortly after Rossi v. Darden was filed. He started up on LENR Forum the day before. I’ve been looking at his recent LENR Forum posts, they tend to be classic Planet Rossi. He is apparently a real person, and Mike Rion is his real name, and he is indeed a “retired real estate agent,” living in Hemet, California, apparently about 71 or “in his seventies.”

There is no coherent community on LENR Forum that believes something just because Dewey Weaver says it. I do not report DW Says as “fact,” other than the fact of him saying what he said. Rion calls Dewey Weaver a “shill,” and has treated the documents filed in Rossi v. Darden as if there was big news there. There was not. We knew that Dewey was working for IH, and that he was involved in communicating with the scientists in the LENR field. While it was not known specifically that he had a consulting contract and was probably paid (we still don’t actually know that), it was simply not surprising information.

What was known very quickly, by the end of April, 2016, was that Weaver was an IH insider, that he was a principal in an LLC, Deep River Ventures, which was an identified shareholder in the parent company of IH, IHHI. His comments and statements, then, would be easily known as involving a “conflict of interest.” Nothing changed about that with the court documents. I knew, well before 2017 dawned, that Weaver was a gatekeeper for IH. I’d met him at ICCF-18, in 2013, so this wasn’t new.

On LENR Forum, Rionrlty wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

If you’ve got something concrete to contribute RiRi then bring it otherwise your professional troll status is setting up faster than super glue in the high desert.

Jones Day is doing one heck of a good job on behalf of their clients. These judges are no nonsense and there is very little worry about where this case is heading on the Def / CP side of the battlefield. The same cannot be said for Planet Rossi.

I’d agree with Dewey. Is it because he wrote it? No, it’s because, since early on with Rossi v. Darden, I have been collecting, studying, and analyzing the case documents, individually and in consultation with an attorney, plus reading all the other arguments. I’ve identified and reported on apparent Jones Day errors, but my overall assessment remains that Jones Day is being effective, and I see just about zero possibility that Rossi’s suit can survive trial, and it may not survive even that long, it is highly vulnerable to Summary Judgment. This is not about a belief in Dewey Weaver, about a belief in fraud, as such, nor about any kind of hatred of Rossi. I don’t hate Rossi.

Rion’s comments are highly provocative and accusatory, designed to poke, not to communicate and find agreement. That’s trolling. Most trolls are anonymous. Not all.

Dewey, I’m a retired Real Estate Broker in Southern California and I would love to get paid for posting on forums, but so far I’ve received no offers. Interested? No one has anything concrete to deliver, you because of ND and biased credibility, and the rest of us simply because it hasn’t been supplied to us yet. Along with the rest of the poster’s here we must wait and see what the Jury decides, unless it settles out of court.

Dewey just delivered an apparent fact: the Dominican Republic deponent was Penon. If this were false, it would be useless, and would prove harmful to some supposed anti-Rossi or pro-IH agenda. Having studied Dewey’s comments for almost a year, reading them over and actually compiling them, I can report my preliminary impression: when Dewey reports fact, and when it becomes verifiable, he’s not been lying. Dewey, for that year, has been refusing to answer certain questions because of NDA, which is not just with IH, it would also be with those with whom he regularly communicates.

Rion is ontologically naive. “We must wait.” We “must” wait for what? If I were thinking of investing in Rossi technology, damn straight I’d suggest waiting! However, by what rule are we prohibited from looking at fact as we have it — and even at opinion — and presenting conclusions? Rion is interacting with Dewey, here, who actually knows what’s going on, we can assume, far more than any of the rest of us. Rion then deprecates what Dewey writes, effectively because he’s an insider, but Rion has speculated at length about this case, without knowledge, for almost a year.  I haven’t notice that he’s contributed anything of value. (which is true for many blog participants, to be sure). So ….

Dewey Weaver wrote:

RiRi – Oh yeah – our field attracts a lot of loud mouth real estate brokers who find themselves credible.

You got nothin’ – thanks for clarifying.

More comedy – less pain.

That’s Dewey Weaver. He is not a spokesperson for Industrial Heat and IH does not necessarily approve of what he writes. While he is under an NDA, that’s between him and IH and anyone else involved. What I’ve seen him write, I doubt that IH would sue him. My guess is that it has been suggested that he tone it down a bit. I suggest that myself. However, my training is in working with people engaged in transformation, and a level of tolerance is required. Nobody will be perfect in any respect. On Planet Rossi, the standard idea is that there is a massive campaign to discredit Rossi, coordinated by APCO, and accomplished with many paid operatives. It’s preposterous. Of course, Sifferkoll and Rossi claimed I was paid, so … obviously I’m not going to admit it, and, obviously, I will lie.

I could go into detail about what Rion wrote on ECW. I won’t. I think he’s sincere, and massively deluded, his thinking is far from clear, and appears to be afflicted with old-guy paranoia, if this is not addressed when we are younger, it gets worse with age as our flexibility declines.

I am, by the way, probably close to his age. Rionrlty is not engaging in real conversation. He’s just tossing cheap shots. Exceptions? Anyone may point to one in comments here. I love being wrong, it is the fastest way to learn. That would be the argument against judging “before we have all the facts.” We might be wrong! But I DGAF about being wrong, because I can correct errors, as far as anything that actually counts. People who are terrified of being wrong paralyze themselves so that they cannot learn. (And then this shades into firm attachment to being right, already.)

If there are any errors on this blog, please point them out! A sincere attempt to correct errors can lead to useful conversations, whether they are “right” or not.

And now for something completely different. Links!

The discussion on LENR Forum that I covered yesterday fell into a series of Planet Rossi trolls doing what PR trolls do: repeat the same stuff over and over, hoping it will stick. Sometimes, eventually, that stuff stands because nobody bothers to answer it Yet Again. Victory! Proven! Nobody Could Answer! So, bored by this and the constant temptation to point out how Stupid it all is, I noticed mention by a concern troll of a Marianne Macy article that I had not read. And that led to more articles, some I had not noticed before, some that I had, and some that I read now with new understanding. Join me in a ride through Reality, it’s fun. Continue reading “And now for something completely different. Links!”

Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom

Okay, the title may be meaningless. So sue me.

Because the recent IH disclosures have revealed the contract between Industrial Heat and Dewey Weaver, there has been much blogviation over this. Aha! they proclaim. We knew it! He is Paid by Industrial Heat!

But that has been obvious for a long time, that Dewey was working for Industrial Heat — in addition to being an investor in it. This has nothing to do with whether information from Dewey can be trusted or not, other than the obvious necessary caution. It means that the man probably knows some things that the rest of us don’t know. Anyone who will take all statements from someone in Dewey’s position as Gospel Truth would be foolish. Dewey makes mistakes, among other things, and then much of what he has written is clearly not factual, but judgment. Judgment is conclusory in nature, and it’s not difficult to tell the difference between testimony from knowledge and the expression of conclusions, though sometimes circumstances may be confused. I.e., I might say that X is true, but the reality — and I’d say this if asked — could be that So-and-so told me X is true, and I trust So-and-so. That is why it must always be possible to cross-examine witnesses, to tease out fact from conclusions.

In a legal matter it is up to the judge and/or the jury to come to conclusions. Witnesses provide fact as grist for that mill, and judges and juries assess the probity of testimony and its implications, and attorneys may present arguments for this or that interpretation, advancing the interests of their clients.

This — and the other blogs — is not a court, a brilliant observation which has been made by many. We are the peanut gallery. However, some people who read these blogs might be makers somewhere, somewhen, somehow. We are interested in and discuss Rossi v. Darden because it’s there, or because we have some axe to grind, or some critical interest to protect. What I find hilarious, in particular, are those who say, “this is all useless to discuss, because the court will decide,” and who then argue strongly for some position, often in ways blatantly contrary to the evidence available, and full of contempt for other views.

What’s true is that almost none of this discussion will have any influence on the outcome of Rossi v. Darden, but it may help us understand it.

(It is possible that some of us may come across something that was overlooked by the attorneys. It can happen. )

Most of the issues are already laid out well enough to make predictions. Such predictions are not certainties. There may be a Wabbit. If we are so lucky as to see a Wabbit, our entire perspective on life can change. But we don’t expect to see one when we get up in the morning, do we?

So, Dewey Weaver is being discussed on LENR Forum, and Peter Gluck, who wrote he was going to abstain from comment on LF, didn’t. We are not surprised.

Eric Walker pointed to the Industrial Heat Memorandum of Law that provided so much information about Deep River Ventures, i.e., Dewey’s LLC … so I’m starting with this, a rock tossed in the river. Splashes? Ripples? How deep is the river? Continue reading “Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom”

Conversations: Pweet

Pweet posted a comment, and it brings up some issues worthy of a blog post. We seem to be establishing a Conversations series here, creating connections and understandings. This will, I expect, expand and will greatly expand when we have more users here with Author privileges. Eventually, we will have a governing structure that is not Abd Says, but here is where we start. Every real journey starts Here, not in some imaginary place.

Before I cover Pweet’s comment, some history. Googling the name, besides a lot of porn (I have no idea why, except that the porn pages have thousands of words at the bottom to trick Google into displaying them), I found what may have been my best post ever to LENR-Forum, put up shortly before I was banned, as a response to Pweet speaks and Gluck responds. As can be expected at my age, I had forgotten about it, though I did immediately recognize it.

As usual with LENR Forum, what might be useful or cogent or thought-provoking is buried in the avalanche of dreck. There is no process for creating or measuring consensus, other than a crude upvote/downvote system that doesn’t sort posts, so to find anything of value takes massive work which mostly isn’t done. We could set up a rating system here that would allow finding the Best Posts on any forum, and that can be done with overall neutrality. However, that’s a suggestion from a chief, a tribal elder. Are there any Indians?

Looking for the original Ego Out posts, I came across one of the strong evidences that Rossi lies. So why not collect these? Rossi Lies.

Little by little, we go far. And for one of those massive Lomax diversions, see this page, which shows how blogs create rumors that are passed on as fact. I knew that aphorism from the Spanish, which he covers, but also from the Arabic, “shweya shweya.” Now, where were we?  Continue reading “Conversations: Pweet”